What do the recent climate rulings mean for children’s rights?

 

The landmark Advisory Opinions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights may have fundamentally reshaped States’ legal obligations on climate action. In this article, CRIN analyses both recent Advisory Opinions through a children’s rights lens, highlighting the often-overlooked position of children in climate policy and decision-making.

 
 

From Pacific Islands students and young people across the world to Austrian children and elderly Swiss women, people across generations have long turned to the law in pursuit of climate justice. Against this backdrop of a continued intergenerational fight against climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have both issued landmark Advisory Opinions in May and July 2025, declaring that States have clear, binding obligations to protect both present and future generations from the impacts of the climate crisis. Advisory Opinions are legal clarifications on what States' obligations are under international law. While legally non-binding, Advisory Opinions have great political authority and often serve as a catalyst for government action.

In this article, we analyse both Advisory Opinions to unpack the courts' findings through a children’s rights lens - highlighting the often-overlooked position of children in climate policy and decision-making, despite being among the most vulnerable to the harms of climate change.

Children’s rights in the 21st century

Climate change is already putting children in harm’s way. Nearly every child on Earth is exposed to at least one climate-related hazard, ranging from extreme weather events to water scarcity, which drives increases in malnutrition, illness and child mortality (IACtHR, para 597; ICJ, para 384). For children living in frontline regions, such as small islands nations, the situation is even more dire. In her separate opinion, ICJ Judge Charlesworth has highlighted the devastating effects of climate change on children in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Melanesia (a region in the Pacific ocean), where rising malnutrition, school closures, the erosion of cultural practices and growing inequalities are already threatening children’s education, lives and futures (paras 20–21).

While, unfortunately, the ICJ’s ruling does not delve more deeply into the impact of climate change on children’s rights or engage substantially with existing children’s rights jurisprudence, the IACtHR confirms that they are entitled to differentiated protection and outlines a comprehensive range of obligations for States. 

Those State obligations are:

  • In line with States’ duty to respect all human rights without discrimination, States must adopt tailored measures that enable children to effectively exercise their rights in the face of climate impacts and State responses to them (para 223).

  • In light of the State’s duty to cooperate - meaning a duty to work together in good faith to maintain international peace and security - States must design and implement national and regional policies and strategies to protect the rights of children in climate-related migration processes (where children are forced to migrate from their homes to a different place or country) (para 434).

  • In light of the obligation to protect, States must progressively guarantee access to quality health services (including mental health support for eco-anxiety), ensure that environmental policies are informed by the best available science on child-specific impacts and prioritise marginalised groups such as Indigenous and disabled children (paras 577, 579, 599). 

  • States must provide children, their caregivers and educators with accurate, accessible climate-related information, taking into account literacy, disability, linguistic and technological barriers (para 600).

  • States must create safe, age-appropriate mechanisms for children to participate directly and effectively in climate decision-making processes, as well as actively promote and protect the work of child environmental human rights defenders (paras 601-2). 

  • States must facilitate child-friendly access to justice by eliminating barriers to judicial and complaint mechanisms, reiterating best practices from independent institutions such as ombudspersons and free legal aid - and avoid adverse cost orders in climate-related proceedings brought by children (paras 603-4).

The ICJ adds further weight to State obligations by recalling the Paris Agreement’s preamble and affirming that children’s rights must be respected, promoted and considered in all climate action (para 382). The ICJ’s reiteration of the Paris Agreement signals a shift toward placing children at the centre of climate action. Intergenerational equity is becoming a key element of - and lens with which to consider - meaningful climate action.

As defined by the ICJ, intergenerational equity is “the idea that present generations are trustees of humanity tasked with preserving dignified living conditions and transmitting them to future generations’’ (para 156). The Court confirms that this general principle must guide how States interpret and fulfil their climate obligations, putting it at the heart of climate action (para 161) while adding that the duty to prevent significant environmental harm includes protecting the climate system for both present and future generations (para 273). Governments must, therefore, take the rights and needs of future generations into consideration when making decisions today. That means climate action, mitigation or adaptation or addressing loss and damage, must be ambitious enough to secure a livable planet for the children and generations who will inherit it (paras 155–157).

In her separate opinion, Judge Xue further explains that intergenerational equity requires a fundamental shift: “For intergenerational equity, it means that the current development model must shift to one that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own” (para 27). This, she notes, means that States must ensure their mitigation measures are anchored in sustainable development and actively move away from unsustainable practices. One could almost see the reference to the need to phase out fossil fuels.

Phasing out fossil fuels 

Scientific consensus confirms that fossil fuels are the largest source of global CO2 emissions. Meaningful climate action, therefore, requires concrete decisions to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by limiting and rapidly reducing fossil fuel production, consumption and financing. Given their pervasive role in everything from energy and transportation to the manufacture of plastics (99% of plastics are made of fossil fuels), chemicals, cosmetics and fertilisers, phasing out fossil fuels represents a fundamental shift for societies and economies worldwide.

When it comes to the climate harms caused by fossil fuels, the ICJ leaves no room for ambiguity: the combustion of coal, oil and gas is the biggest driver of anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 emissions - and States are legally responsible for both their actions and their omissions in this context. Thus, ‘’[f]ailure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State’’ (para 427).

In this context, the Court stresses that States have a due diligence obligation to regulate private actors whose operations result in harmful emissions, debunking the myth that private sector emissions fall outside the State’s scope of responsibility. The IACtHR adds that, consistent with the duty to prevent harm to the climate system, States must exercise strict supervision and oversight over private actors generating GHG emissions, including those involved in the entire fossil fuel chain (exploration, extraction, transport and processing). Recognising that some companies carry a heavier historical responsibility for emissions, the Court calls for heightened scrutiny and enforcement for those companies under the polluter pays principle (paras 352-3). The Court also rejects the argument of many States that their GHG emissions are insignificant and that climate change is a result of cumulative emissions over time from multiple countries by explaining that “it is scientifically possible to determine each State’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions” (para 429).

The right to a healthy environment

The ICJ affirms that the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of all other human rights. This is a strong recognition for children, whose health, development and future opportunities depend on the quality of the environment they grow up in (paras 387-393). Noting that many regional and national systems already recognise this right, the ICJ confirms that the right to a clean and healthy environment exists as an independent right under international law.

While the Court stops short of declaring the right to a healthy environment as customary international law, Judges Tladi (para 31), Aurescu (para 46), and Bhandari (para 3) explicitly state in their separate opinions their conviction that it is indeed a norm of customary international law. Judge Tladi even points to the UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 as evidence of its customary status, whereas Judge Bhandari describes the Opinion itself as a recognition of it.

The IACtHR takes a different and innovative approach. It declares that the right to a healthy climate is a protected human right, essential for enjoying life, health, non-discrimination, and dignity and derived from the right to a healthy environment (para. 298-316). This right gives children a strong legal basis to demand real climate action. Recognising that preventing irreversible climate harm is a jus cogens norm (paras. 287-294), a legally binding fundamental norm of international law from which no derogation is allowed, the IACtHR places strict obligations on States to reduce GHG emissions and regulate corporate actors, including setting appropriate mitigation measures and developing human rights-based climate strategies (paras. 317-376).

Taken together, these Advisory Opinions elevate the right to a healthy environment, reinforcing it as a standalone right and, arguably, solidifying its status as customary international law. They make clear that States are now legally obligated to uphold this right in practice. This evolving legal framework empowers governments to adopt ambitious, child-centred climate policies, regulate companies, and protect young environmental defenders. Ultimately, this evolving framework helps ensure that every child has the chance to grow up, thrive, and play in a world that is clean, safe, and sustainable.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and just transition

The ICJ delivers one of the most important clarifications yet on NDCs, the national action plans of countries aimed at achieving the long-term goal of limiting global warming to just below 1.5°C (para 242). NDCs must, according to the ICJ, (i) reflect each State’s “highest possible ambition” (para 242) and (ii) make an adequate contribution to achieving the 1.5°C (paras 242, 224). The “mere formal preparation, communication and maintenance of successive NDCs” is not enough to comply with the obligations under the Paris Agreement (para 236). The ICJ adds that States do not have unfettered discretion over their emissions reduction targets (para 245). In practice, this means countries cannot hide behind weak targets when children’s futures are at stake. Mitigation goals must be science-based, commensurate with each State’s capabilities and collectively compatible with the 1.5°C pathway. By confirming that ambition is a legal requirement and not entirely within the discretion of States, the Advisory Opinion lends considerable importance to current and future mitigation goals, which enables States to be held accountable. Coming just ahead of the next deadline for updated NDCs, States must take their NDCs seriously and deliver genuinely meaningful goals in the context of a just transition.

In a broader context, the IACtHR makes it clear: a just transition isn’t just a policy goal, it’s a legal obligation. Rooted in international labour standards and human rights law, States must benefit from the opportunities of the green economy while protecting workers, reducing inequality and ensuring that those most responsible for emissions carry the heaviest burden (paras 160, 262, 265). Crucially, the obligation to co-operate, a cornerstone of international law, requires developed countries to provide economic and financial aid to the least developed countries (IACtHR, paras 262-4).

But it doesn’t stop there. A truly just transition demands inclusive participation - especially from trade unions and affected communities, including children, and must be backed by strong social protections, decent job creation and targeted support for informal sectors (such as the care economy and climate-vulnerable industries) (para 446). As the world will gather to discuss the path forward for a just transition at COP30 in November, countries must heed the words from the international courts - no one can be left behind in a truly just transition. 

Conclusions

In short, these Advisory Opinions mark a significant shift in what urgent, ambitious and equitable climate action should look like according to the law. Going forward, States cannot afford to be passive during climate and environmental negotiations, whether at treaty talks on plastics, climate, or the Aarhus Convention; ambition is no longer optional. For children around the world, these Opinions offer more than hope; they provide concrete tools to encourage their governments to take action on climate change.

The people and children in Palestine

Children are among the first to bear the brunt of climate breakdown and environmental degradation, especially in countries like Palestine whose people face a genocide by Israel. Yet their rights are often the last to be considered in legal and political decisions. The destruction of schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure in Gaza illustrates how genocide robs children not only of their present safety but of their future. Similarly, the accelerating climate crisis threatens children’s right to life, health, education and development everywhere. 

When the International Court of Justice delivers Advisory Opinions, whether on climate change or the ongoing genocide in Gaza, States have a responsibility to align their actions with these rulings. Advisory Opinions are not mere guidance: they articulate the legal obligations under a just international order. Ignoring them undermines the rule of law and places children, who are among the most vulnerable, at further risk. States must act according to their obligations under international law and protect human rights, including children’s rights, from the adverse effects of the biggest challenges this century faces. 

 
Read, EnglishChild Rights International NetworkClimate crisis, EnvironmentComment