Pakistan has welcomed the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states concerning climate change, calling it to reaffirm the main international legal responsibilities in the fight against the global climate crisis.
The CIJ said that countries must approach the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change by cooperating to limit emissions, as it has delivered an opinion to determine future environmental disputes. The inability of countries to comply with their climatic obligations could, in specific cases, direct other states affected by climate change by pleading.
In a statement published Thursday, the Government of Pakistan said that opinion “highlights the urgent global challenge posed by climate change and reaffirms critical legal obligations under international law”.
Pakistan Attorney General, Mansoor Usman Awan, had presented oral submissions before the CIJ on April 15, 2025, stressing the need to recognize the duty of states to prevent significant environmental damage as “an obligation that transcends borders and requires strict diligence of each state”.
Islamabad also submitted two detailed written declarations to the Court on March 21 and August 9, 2024, strengthening its position on the responsibilities of the States under international environmental law.
The CIJ said several key positions put forward by Pakistan in its advisory opinion on the legal responsibilities of states concerning climate change, the government said.
Read: The high -level court of the world opens the way for climate repairs
The court has confirmed that the long -standing principle of customary international law of prevention of significant environmental damage applies explicitly to greenhouse gas emissions induced by humans. The decision is strengthening that states are forced to prevent activities related to their jurisdiction from causing significant cross -border environmental damage.
The ICJ said that specialized climatic agreements – such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CCNUCC) and the Paris Agreement – do not prevail over the broader obligation of prevention under customary international law.
This decision supports the position of Pakistan, which rejected the idea that these treaties represent the Specialized Lex capable of limiting or moving the general environmental tasks that all states must defend.
The CIJ has acknowledged that states have extraterritorial obligations on human rights under the International Alliance on Civil and Political Rights (PICPR) when activities within their borders cause damage beyond, including climate impacts.
The decision is aligned with Islamabad’s submission that states are responsible for human rights violations resulting from actions or omissions which cause significant environmental damage affecting people in other countries.
“As one of the most important countries on the events induced by the climate,” said the press release, “Pakistan urges all nations to strictly comply with their legal obligations and strengthen global collaboration efforts to mitigate climate change and support adaptation measures”.
In addition, the opinion of the CIJ was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for the small islands and the low states that had asked the court to clarify the responsibilities of the States.
Find out more: “The government has prepared to combat climate impact”
This opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December to the CIJ when the judges were invited by the United Nations General Assembly to examine two questions: what are the obligations of the countries under international law to protect the climate against greenhouse gas emissions; And what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?
Rich -world countries have told judges that existing climatic treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are not largely non -binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Developing countries and small island states are the most at risk of the increase in sea have argued for stronger measures, in certain legally binding cases, to slow down emissions and for the largest climate warming gas emitters to provide financial assistance.
They had asked for clarification in court after the 2015 Paris Agreement’s failure to limit the global greenhouse gas emissions until now.
At the end of last year, in the “report on emission differences”, which holds the promises of the countries to fight against climate change compared to what is necessary, the UN declared that current climate policies would lead to global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
While activists seek to keep businesses and governments to account for, climate -related disputes have intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases deposited in nearly 60 countries, according to June figures from the Grantham Research Institute in London on climate change and the environment.
