23 July 2025 could mark a milestone in the global fight for climate justice. I believe that the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an essential step towards establishing climate change as a matter of legal responsibility, and not just moral or political responsibility, on the part of States.

This resolution gives me hope because, for the first time in clear terms, the highest judicial body of the United Nations has stated in writing that governments have a legal obligation under international law to prevent the effects of climate change and to protect the climate system for current and future generations. Good intentions or voluntary commitments are no longer enough: there is now a solid legal mandate for action.

Some points that I consider particularly relevant are:

· The clarity with which it is established that the fight against climate change derives both from international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, and from general international law and human rights, is fundamental. This will make it possible to hold States accountable and question inaction or lack of ambition.

· It is important that the Court recognises that climate protection is linked to the right to life, health, housing and food, as well as to the rights of future generations. This vision of intergenerational equity reinforces the ethical and legal obligation to protect the planet for those who will come after us.

· It is essential to specify what happens if a State fails to fulfil these obligations, whether by action or omission: it may be held responsible for an internationally wrongful act, with the obligation to remedy it, ensure that it does not happen again and provide reparation to those who have suffered damage.

· It also clarifies that these obligations are erga omnes (towards the entire international community), which gives any State the power to hold someone accountable if they fail to comply, even if they have not suffered direct harm.

I believe that this opinion opens the door to future litigation, consolidates the legal protection of the most vulnerable communities and sets a fundamental precedent in international law. A few years ago, I believed that climate litigation should be a last resort, an exceptional measure reserved for extreme situations. However, given that we are far from stabilising global warming within safe levels, and considering that there are countries on the front line of climate impacts that do not receive the necessary support to adapt, what should be a last resort will soon become the only option for these communities. It is therefore essential to move forward in building a robust legal basis to guide both political and social action and to support future climate litigation. The ICJ ruling represents a decisive step in this direction.