As a committed environmentalist, I believe 100% in the practical necessity of nature recovery. But when the climate conversation shifts into legal territory, especially around “climate justice,” I pause. The International Court of Justice’s recent advisory opinion declares that countries failing to meet their climate obligations are committing internationally wrongful acts. It sounds bold, but the real-world consequences are far less clear.
Symbolism is not strategy. This kind of ruling risks slowing climate action by dragging it into years of litigation.
First, there is no universally accepted legal definition of “climate obligations.” The Paris Agreement is important, but it is voluntary and non-binding. That is frustrating. Why not engage in legally binding 30x30 targets, with real rules and regulations? What is the point of installing non-binding agreements to agree? That kind of structure collapses under serious legal pressure. Trying to enforce it through international courts creates confusion, not restoration. Legal fights don’t protect nature. They build case files.
Second, the idea of “climate reparations” is politically explosive and operationally vague. Who decides the damage? Who pays? Who is historically responsible? This opens the door to endless disputes and finger-pointing, especially between developed and developing countries. It is not a formula for cooperation. It is a recipe for gridlock. And that gridlock is exactly what helped get us into this mess.
Third, litigation is not restoration. It does not plant trees, defend coastlines, or repair broken water systems. The climate crisis demands engineering, land reform, capital investment, and cultural change. Not a decade of courtrooms, lawyers, and press releases.
Supporters of the ruling say it brings moral clarity. “What the court has done has come in and made it crystal clear that affected frontline nations and communities that have been devastated by climate harm — harm that can be traced to the conduct of specific countries and corporations — those communities, those nations, they absolutely have the right to redress and reparations,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, in Grist.
That may be true in principle. But in practice, assigning legal responsibility for climate damage is slow, complex, and politically toxic. And no courtroom, no matter how well-intentioned, can do the work of ecological recovery.
Island nations like Vanuatu are right to demand accountability. They are facing rising seas and increasing instability. But is Vanuatu without emissions? No. No country is. And no decision from The Hague will change that. Real solutions require real action. That means investment in resilience, targeted debt relief, and international support for ecological renewal.
This brings me to the Chagos Islands, a place where the idea of justice collides directly with environmental reality. After years of legal battles, the push to return the islands to former inhabitants has been framed as a moral and legal necessity. But what happens to the ecosystem that has existed there, largely untouched for decades? What happens to coral reefs, protected species, and undisturbed marine zones if repopulation proceeds without environmental oversight? Will justice for displaced people come at the cost of biodiversity? No one seems to have an answer. Justice is also becoming removed from logic and increasingly politically motivated.
This is where the climate justice conversation gets slippery. It's being lumped in with every historical grievance, every fight over land, territory, and restitution. But not all justice claims are aligned. Some run straight into conflict. The right of return is not always the right of regeneration. Justice without ecological awareness can easily become a wrecking ball, not a path forward.
This is not a rejection of law. It is a call to stay focused. Climate is not a legal debate. It is a rebuilding project. With rare exception, every country still has land, water, and ecosystems worth restoring.
If we want justice, give nature rights. Fund Indigenous stewards. Rebuild what has been lost. Climate solutions are built on the ground, not won in court.