Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) was born in a Following proceedings and hearings at the ICJ, and the review of written statements and comments, the AO on Climate Change was officially issued in July 2025. The issuing of the AO was a watershed moment  in climate justice history and a landmark clarification on the obligations of States, which offers a path forward towards a climate-just future for all. 

The ICJ’s ruling confirmed that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system by keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement. State obligations also include fossil fuel production and subsidies – a major expansion of accountability.

The opinion also confirmed that state obligations derive from multiple sources of law: climate law, environmental law, human rights law and customary international law. This creates a robust legal framework with no escape routes.

By placing climate obligations within the law, the ICJ reframed climate action from voluntary charity to legal obligation. This matters for accountability because it establishes that states cannot simply opt out and violations have legal consequences.

The Court said that state obligations carry legal consequences, meaning breaches are not merely political failures but potential grounds for reparations and compensation claims.

Now, as we look to build on the Court’s findings and take the next step towards climate justice, the UNGA Resolution on the ICJ AO is set to be voted on 20 May, 2026.

Following proceedings and hearings at the ICJ, and the review of written statements and comments, the AO on Climate Change was officially issued in July 2025. The issuing of the AO was a watershed moment  in climate justice history and a landmark clarification on the obligations of States, which offers a path forward towards a climate-just future for all. 

The ICJ’s ruling confirmed that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system by keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement. State obligations also include fossil fuel production and subsidies – a major expansion of accountability.

The opinion also confirmed that state obligations derive from multiple sources of law: climate law, environmental law, human rights law and customary international law. This creates a robust legal framework with no escape routes.

By placing climate obligations within the law, the ICJ reframed climate action from voluntary charity to legal obligation. This matters for accountability because it establishes that states cannot simply opt out and violations have legal consequences.

The Court said that state obligations carry legal consequences, meaning breaches are not merely political failures but potential grounds for reparations and compensation claims.

Now, as we look to build on the Court’s findings and take the next step towards climate justice, the UNGA Resolution on the ICJ AO is set to be voted on on 20 May, 2026.