Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

If you’d asked me last week to imagine the world’s “highest court” declaring climate science settled by judicial fiat, and then threatening the globe with reparations if governments don’t color inside the climate lines, I’d have poured myself a stiff gin-and-tonic and double-checked the URL.

But alas, welcome to 2025, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has just handed down an “advisory opinion” so ambitious, sanctimonious, and scientifically shallow that it reads less like a court ruling and more like the script for a very, very earnest United Nations bake sale. Their own summary of their latest lunacy is here.

Let’s set the table. The ICJ was asked by true-green climate activists to weigh in on whether countries that—brace yourself—aren’t “protecting the climate”, whatever that might mean, are guilty of internationally wrongful conduct.

Not just frowned upon. Not just eligible for a stern talking-to.

Nope: guilty. Legally at fault. Reparations, anyone?

Below is a view of the self-important, arrogant, pompous bench-warmers who think they rule both the world and your pocketbook and are the final arbiters of scientific truth.

And if you thought for a second that their ruling was confined to immediate, actual demonstrable harm, allow me to introduce you to the court’s new climate doctrine: “The environment is the foundation for all human rights.”

Human rights are based on the environment? I mean, who knew? Clearly, the authors of the US Declaration of Independence were blissfully ignorant of that claim when they said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But nooo … apparently, the right to a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is not just a good aspiration, but a precondition and foundation for everything from shelter to the Declaration of Independence.

In these several dozen pages of turgid judicial prose, the court repeatedly assures us that the science is both “unequivocal” and “consensual.” Take a broom and sweep aside the actual, messy debates among climatologists, physicists, statisticians, and economists. Why bother with IPCC’s footnotes and caveats, uncertainty ranges, or the fact that roughly half the scientific world’s population is busy fighting over causal attributions, model reliability, emission pathways, and feedbacks? The ICJ can clear all that up with a wave of the bench.

Never mind that many credentialed scientists—yes, those with tenure, lab coats, and neural networks—keep pointing out flaws in everything from the accuracy of climate models to the lack of robust evidence connecting certain weather events directly to CO₂ emissions.

Those tedious debates? Airbrushed away, replaced by a judicially anointed TRUTH, enforceable anywhere a lawyer can file papers and find a sympathetic press release.

The court then leaps from this supposedly airtight science to the conclusion that all countries are not just morally but legally required to throttle fossil fuels, pay reparations for “climate harm,” whatever that might be at any instant, and—here’s the kicker—restructure their entire economies and energy grids to satisfy the ambitions of the most anxious delegates in the UN General Assembly.

Oh, and it’s not just about emissions within your own border, but across the ether of international commerce, all the way down to how a can of soup is shipped from Kansas to Kazakhstan.

If this strikes you as a rather energetic reading of judicial authority, you’re not alone. The ICJ’s ruling doesn’t just interpret treaties—it rewrites them, pastes new concepts of liability on top, and then wags its finger at every government in creation, basically saying: “Comply, or risk being labeled an international outlaw … and subsequently shaken down for damages.”

(The good news is that this is an “advisory” opinion, not a judicial ruling, and fortunately, any actual power to enforce this is still missing from the court’s toolbelt. But you can expect a flotilla of lawsuits, climate tribunals, and legal NGOs licking their chops.)

Non-judicial conclusions abound in this ruling. The bench, now apparently staffed with philosophers and prophets, instructs the world’s engineers and energy analysts that mitigation cannot wait, adaptation is mandatory, and—lest you were planning on retiring quietly—the only acceptable future is one with emission reductions “of the highest ambition.” You expected law? Foolish you.

You get a political manifesto disguised in judicial robes.

Be clear, though. The danger here isn’t just about climate. It’s about precedent.

If international courts now claim the right to set social, economic, and technological policy for the entire planet by declaratory fiat, who needs parliaments, governments, scientific panels, or—heaven forbid—public debate?

If some green-hued imaginary version of “the environment” is an existential human right, why should courts not do the same for “algorithmic fairness,” “biodiversity equity,” “DEI”, “climate justice” or whatever cause rolls in next with a chorus of law students and a well-produced video appeal?

And don’t kid yourself—this opinion will ricochet through national courts, insurance companies, and boardrooms, emboldening activists to weaponize every multinational agreement in the book against anyone who doesn’t toe the line. The threat of endless litigation, the economic blackmail inherent in “reparations,” and the specter of legal insecurity will choke innovation, investment, and real-world progress faster than you can say “Paris Agreement.”

This ruling is a perfect example of why about two-thirds of the global population lives in countries that have flat-out REFUSED to be ruled by these activist lunatics in black robes … including, thankfully, the US. The US withdrew from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, meaning it is not automatically bound by ICJ judgments. Me, I think we should withdraw from the ICJ entirely and let them play with themselves.

In sum, the ruling isn’t just an overstep. It’s a pole vault over the judicial fence, landing squarely in the realm of politics, philosophy, and scientific orthodoxy enforced by dubious legal muscle. We’re now one step closer to a world where the outcome of complex, unsettled questions gets dictated by robe and gavel, not science, reason, public debate, or reality … and that is a very dangerous precedent.

Good luck to us all. My solution?

US out of the UN entirely, including out of the ICJ and every other slimy tentacle of the UN. It is a snake-pit of vipers, totalitarians, anti-Semites, self-important “jurists”, and crazy green activists.

UN out of the US entirely. Move the headquarters to Ouagadougou or someplace where the locals need help, forbid the UN employees from using air conditioning so they can “protect the climate”, and see how many UN fat-cats and parasites living the good life in New York City suddenly quit to “spend more time with their families” …

My best to all, keep fighting the good fight,

w.

PS—Yeah, you’ve heard it before. When you comment, quote the exact words you’re discussing, so we can tell what you’re talking about.

Essay by Eric Worrall

“States … have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions …”

The press release;

If anyone has the patience, the full 133 page judgement (mostly in English) is available here (backup copy here).

From the advisory opinion press release + judgement;

…

The climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations include the following:

(a) States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change;

(b) States parties listed in Annex I to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs;

(c) States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have a duty to co-operate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the Convention; (d) States parties to the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the Protocol;

(e) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the Agreement;

(f) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive nationally determined contributions which, inter alia, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5∞C above pre-industrial levels;

(g) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions; and

(h) States parties to the Paris Agreement have obligations of adaptation and co-operation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.

– Customary international law sets forth obligations for States to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations include the following:

(a) States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities;

(b) States have a duty to co-operate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of co-operation by States when taking measures to prevent such harm.

…

Read more: Same link as above

Despite the court claiming the judgement is advisory, the body of the judgement appears to claim that under the UN charter all members of the UN including the USA have an obligation to respect this ICJ judgement, due to customary respect for a rules the USA has not necessarily explicitly embraced.

b) Duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment 140. The duty to co-operate lies at the core of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 1 of the Charter commits States “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian characterø. This obligation has been spelled out in the foundational “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970) (hereinafter the “Declaration on Friendly Relations). The Court has held that “the adoption by States of this text affords an indication of their opinio juris as to customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 101, para. 191). That observation also applies to the duty to co-operate in so far as it finds expression in many binding and non-binding instruments relating specifically to the environment. The duty to co-operate is a central obligation under the climate change treaties and other environmental treaties, as discussed below (see paragraphs 214-218 and 260-267). Other examples include Principle 24 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (hereinafter the “Rio Declaration”), which both recognize co-operation as an essential element in the protection of the environment. In view of the related practice of States, the Court considers that the duty of States to co-operate for the protection of the environment is a rule whose customary character has been established (see Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, ITLOS Reports 2024, p. 110, para. 296; MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 110, para. 82).

Read more: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf

I’m not a legal expert, but the argument that customary law with respect to international relations carries weight appears to be weak, though not necessarily weak enough to have it immediately dismissed without lots of time and money.

The US Senate did ratify the UN Charter in 1945, though arguably the UN has since granted itself powers which were not part of the original charter. I don’t recall the senate ever ratifying the USA’s alleged climate obligations under that 1945 charter. The claim the USA has a climate obligation under a charter ratified by the US Senate long before the UN got involved in the climate game seems a stretch.

Perhaps the “customary character” argument that states have a duty of compliance is a reference to the acquiescence of previous US administrations to unratified UN extensions of authority. If this is correct, that would make the ICJ advisory an assertion that the USA should shut up and do what they are told.

Obviously this ICJ ruling provides a lot of scope for mischief by NGOs and state governors who disagree with President Trump’s climate policies. I can see this ICJ ruling making a lot of lawyers rich.

Interestingly there has been a recent bump in Lithium prices, from around $8.50 / lb in late June to around $10 / lb today, though the explanations I’ve read claim this is due to a global cleardown of excess inventory rather than speculation the ICJ ruling might boost demand for EVs.