On July 23, 2025, a significant advisory opinion was issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the responsibilities of states in relation to climate change. This opinion represents a crucial moment in the global pursuit of climate justice. However, it has been noted that the opinion lacks a comprehensive consideration of important justice aspects, particularly when viewed through a feminist lens.
The ICJ addressed two primary inquiries: the legal obligations that states bear concerning climate change and the repercussions of failing to fulfill these obligations, especially concerning vulnerable populations and future generations. It was affirmed by the court that these obligations are derived from climate treaties, customary international law, human rights law, and general principles of international law.
In substance, the court confirmed that all states are required to take action to prevent “significant harm” to the environment and human rights that are threatened by climate change. This includes the duty of due diligence to regulate emissions and a binding obligation to cooperate globally. Notably, the court elevated the 1.5-degree-Celsius target outlined in the Paris Agreement from a mere aspirational objective to a legally relevant standard. This means that countries’ climate commitments can now be assessed against it in legal terms.
The opinion emphasized that the failure to act violates fundamental human rights such as the rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment. It was stressed that states could face international accountability for not acting in accordance with scientific evidence and established legal norms. This puts pressure on countries to improve their upcoming Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and increase financial and technical assistance to developing nations based on principles of fairness and shared but varied responsibilities.
A groundbreaking aspect of the ICJ’s opinion is the recognition that climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) can maintain legal standing even if they are physically submerged by rising seas. This recognition enhances their legal position in climate discussions and potentially allows for reparation claims in cases of climate inaction by states or corporations.
However, one significant criticism of the ICJ’s opinion is its failure to address the gendered dimensions of climate justice, which is considered a persistent blind spot in global climate governance. From a feminist perspective, the opinion is criticized for being overly abstract and state-centric, neglecting the disproportionate climate impacts faced by women, indigenous peoples, gender minorities, and those marginalized by poverty and displacement.
Feminist legal scholars argue that this was a missed opportunity to integrate gender-specific obligations into the climate governance framework. By not applying an intersectional approach, the opinion risks perpetuating structural inequalities rooted in patriarchal systems that dictate access to resources, political participation, and the burdens of unpaid labor. The silence of the ICJ on this issue reinforces a justice framework that is more procedural than transformative.
Another concern raised is the absence of gender-responsive remedies in the court’s opinion. For instance, it does not specify how reparations in legal proceedings should cater to the distinct needs of women and marginalized communities. This could result in future remedial mechanisms being gender-blind, failing to ensure access to climate-resilient infrastructure, support for relocation, or climate finance tailored to those most impacted.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion contrasts with the 2024 advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which explicitly linked climate harms to gender-based violence, land rights, and the systemic disenfranchisement of women. This highlights deeper gaps within international law in terms of knowledge and representation. The predominantly male composition of the ICJ’s bench, drawn from elite legal circles, raises concerns about the need for diverse perspectives, particularly from the Global South and feminist legal traditions, to develop jurisprudence that effectively addresses the complexities of climate injustice.
Nevertheless, there is room for action. Feminist activists and legal advocates can leverage the affirmation of human rights and intergenerational equity by the ICJ to advocate for gender-sensitive laws and policies at national and regional levels. The opinion can serve as a reference for courts globally when interpreting state responsibilities, and civil society can use it to demand inclusive governance, reparative finance, and gender-responsive climate planning. Feminist principles can be integrated into mechanisms such as the Loss and Damage Fund and the Green Climate Fund at forums like the COP negotiations.
The extent to which the ICJ’s opinion contributes to a more equitable climate order will depend on how civil society, legal professionals, and policymakers push its boundaries. Without centering those most affected by climate change, there is a risk that the law will merely serve as a tool for legitimacy rather than liberation. Therefore, there is a call for Bangladesh to enact climate justice legislation that is sensitive to gender issues and transformational in nature.