ALTHOUGH the International Court of Justice’s July 2025 advisory opinion on climate change was a watershed moment in climate action, it received limited attention from Pakistan’s legal and climate communities. This landmark decision by the ICJ’s 15 judges authoritatively clarifies states’ legal responsibilities, establishing the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature threshold as the binding global benchmark. COP30 in Belém has since acknowledged growing risks of overshoot.
The court’s opinion imposes on every state a binding obligation to demonstrate its “highest possible ambition” in climate action. This requires aligning Nationally Determined Contributions and regulatory frameworks with the scientifically determined target. Significantly, the court’s analysis extends state responsibility to the full lifecycle of fossil fuels: production, licensing, subsidies, and downstream indirect emissions across the value chain. The opinion confirms that IPCC assessments constitute “the best available science”, rendering fossil fuel subsidies potentially wrongful when foreseeably incompatible with temperature limits.
The ICJ’s reasoning unfolds through five foundational principles:
-
Precautionary approach: Scientific uncertainty cannot justify inaction. The court emphasises that IPCC warnings mandate immediate protective steps, even as 1.5°C proves unsafe for vulnerable populations of countries like Pakistan at current 1.2°C warming.
-
Duty to prevent significant harm: Under customary international law, states must exercise due diligence to prevent transboundary environmental damage, extending to all anthropogenic GHG contributions from production through consumption.
-
Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC): Burdens must align with historical emissions, current capacities, and evolving circumstances. The Paris Agreement’s “different national circumstances” formulation upholds, rather than weakens this core principle.
-
Intergenerational equity: Present generations hold climate stability in trust for future ones. The court rejects infrastructure decisions creating emissions lock-in that imperil subsequent generations’ rights to dignified living conditions.
-
Duty to cooperate: A legally binding obligation requires states to collaborate on mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, with higher-capacity states bearing primary responsibility towards vulnerable ones.
The court rejected arguments by developed countries that specialised climate treaties supersede other international obligations, confirming these principles integrate across UN Charter obligations, human rights law, and environmental treaties. This means the developed countries cannot use the Paris Agreement’s ambiguous language to shield themselves from broader legal accountability.
Pakistan’s superior judiciary operationalised ICJ’s recent climate principles much earlier.
While unanimous on core 1.5°C obligations as a state responsibility, individual judges articulated nuanced approaches. Judge Nolte advocated cautious interpretation, prioritising close adherence to treaty texts. Judge Xue highlighted challenges in linking past emissions to present harms, calling for steady progress through careful monitoring while treating 1.5°C as a practical guide. Judge Yusuf stressed that new fossil fuel projects constitute risks under due diligence standards, demanding clear national plans over procedural delays.
Judges Aurescu, Bhandari, and Tladi linked human rights and harm prevention to accelerated emissions cuts by major emitters, grounding these in equity principles and compensation duties. In their statement, Judges Bhandari and Cleveland required accounting for full emissions chains from production to use, calling new fossil fuel exploration incompatible with 1.5°C limits.
Pakistan’s superior judiciary operationalised these ICJ principles years earlier. In ‘Shehla Zia vs Wapda’ (1994), the Supreme Court established that scientific uncertainty mandated precautionary protection. ‘D.G. Khan Cement vs Government of Punjab’ (2021) prohibited industrial expansion in ecologically fragile zones, embodying ‘duty to prevent significant harm’ while recognising intergenerational justice and environmental personhood.
Most significantly, ‘Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan’ (2015) saw Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah recognise Pakistan’s limited historical emissions while mandating action commensurate with national capacity, explicitly invoking CBDR-RC. Justice Shah affirmed future generations’ constitutional rights to climate stability. The Climate Change Commission, where I served under Dr Parvez Hassan, operationalised the ‘duty to cooperate’ through multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Justice Athar Minallah’s Islamabad Zoo case reinforced that governmental neglect causing environmental degradation violates fundamental duties. These precedents position Pakistan’s judiciary among global leaders in climate jurisprudence, presenting a compelling case for Pakistan to recognise its recently ‘retired’ judges by nominating them for ICJ positions in 2027, when a third of the court’s members retire.
The diverse judicial perspectives in the ICJ offer Pakistan multiple pathways rather than binary choices. Pakistan can pursue enhanced environmental standards and climate risk assessments that satisfy core obligations, while evidence-based sectoral transitions can target RE expansion and incremental scaling. Controlled fossil fuel reductions synchronised with global roadmaps can balance climate ambition with economic stability.
Pakistan faces significant implementation challenges. Its political economy, fiscal constraints, institutional capacity gaps, and reliance on fossil fuel projects create tensions with climate commitments. The advisory opinion’s non-binding nature means enforcement depends on political will and diplomatic pressure. However, our unique position as both climate-vulnerable and jurisprudentially advanced creates an opportunity where Pakistan can leverage its superior court precedents to demonstrate that 1.5°C-aligned governance is legally feasible and constitutionally mandated. By formally recognising the judiciary’s pre-emptive alignment with ICJ principles, Pakistan positions its jurisprudence as a global contribution worthy of replication.
Coordinated action is needed across multiple fronts. Pakistan must deliver climate justice to its people by grounding its position in pioneering judicial precedents alongside the ICJ opinion, establishing that developed countries’ obligations to provide financial and technological help stem from binding legal principles, not voluntary solidarity.
By honouring their judiciary’s legacy while embracing the ICJ’s guidance, Pakistani negotiators can champion the 1.5°C imperative as a moral necessity and legal obligation. The deeper challenge ahead, however, is delivering justice to front-line communities while advancing climate accountability.
The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2025
