The world's top court says climate inaction could be unlawful. Australia might have a problem.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that governments failing to act on climate change are now breaching international law.

The court’s opinion makes it clear: a healthy environment is a human right, and countries are expected to slash emissions in line with the 1.5°C global warming target from the Paris Agreement as signed by Australia in 2015. 

So where does that leave Australia, a country that doesn’t even like following its own laws?

Australia is one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel exporters.

And while we love to downplay that fact when it comes to global emissions, this new legal opinion suggests that even exported pollution like the coal and gas we ship overseas could count against us in court.

The Australian Government is expected to announce its 2035 climate target soon.

The Climate Council said the ICJ’s Judgement “makes clear that a target should be as strong as possible and accompanied by plans and policies to implement that target.”

They argue “that, to comply with international law, this judgement requires Australia to both set a strong national target and take action on exported emissions to help hold global heating to 1.5°C.”

Right now, the planet’s already warmed by around 1.2°C.

At 1.5°C, scientists say we can expect even worse climate disasters like more intense heatwaves, fires, floods, food shortages, and mass coral bleaching.

That’s why the Paris Agreement set 1.5°C as the global safety limit. The  2015 treaty signed by 195 nations, established a target to limit global warming. 

This agreement aims to keep the world's average surface temperature "well below" 2°C warmer than pre-industrial levels by 2100, while also pursuing efforts to restrict the increase to a safer limit of 1.5°C.

This ruling from the ICJ opens the door for smaller countries, particularly Pacific Island nations, who are already facing rising sea levels and more frequent and intense disasters.

Their argument is that they didn’t cause this climate change-induced impact, but they’re the ones copping it. 

In fact, just last week, a separate case was decided on whether governments owe a duty of care to people being displaced by climate change.

In the landmark ruling, the Federal Court acknowledged that climate change poses an “existential threat” to the Torres Strait Islands, but found there is no legal remedy under Australian law to protect traditional owners from its impacts.

The case, led by elders Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, argued the Commonwealth had a duty to prevent their homelands from becoming uninhabitable, from the effects of climate change. Justice Wigney accepted the climate impacts were real and devastating, but ruled that imposing such a duty would require the court to intervene in core government decisions, like emissions targets and budgets.

While the case was unsuccessful, the judgment criticised the government’s failure to consider the best available science and described its response—like funding sea walls—as “too little, too late.” The outcome leaves the matter squarely in the hands of political leaders and voters.

In the future, it could be argued that world governments should assist in building sea walls, infrastructure, and funding to adapt to a new world.

This ICJ ruling could now show up as evidence in future court cases – not just internationally, but here in Australia – as proof that global legal norms are shifting.

Governments can no longer pretend they don’t know. The law is catching up.