The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark climate opinion could significantly strengthen the legal battle South African communities are waging against offshore oil and gas exploration by companies such as Shell and TotalEnergies. The ruling has sparked critical conversations around environmental justice, state accountability, and the future of fossil fuel exploration.
Professor Angela van der Berg, Director of the Global Environmental Law Centre (GELC) at the University of the Western Cape (UWC), stated that the ICJ’s findings represent a turning point for climate litigation worldwide. “The ICJ is the highest court in the world, and at the highest level, it confirmed for the first time that all states are legally obliged to act on climate change. So, it’s not only politically encouraged, but they are also legally obliged to do so,” she explained.
She added that the opinion affirms cutting emissions and phasing out fossil fuels as legal duties under international law, closely tied to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal. Importantly, the court also clarified that states must regulate private corporations to prevent climate harm. “This could include companies like Shell,” van der Berg noted, “meaning that governments cannot hide now behind company or corporate action.”
The ICJ reframed climate change as a human rights issue, linking its impacts to the rights to life, health, water, food, and a healthy environment. According to van der Berg, “It said that this climate obligation binds all states, even if they haven’t signed the climate change treaty.”
For South African communities opposing offshore drilling, van der Berg believes the ruling offers “stronger legal leverage.” She said: “They can argue now that authorizing fossil fuel projects breaches South Africa’s duty to prevent climate harm, not only in terms of international or customary law, but even under our Climate Change Act, our nationally determined contributions, and our Constitution.”
The ICJ also stressed that even a single project can contribute to cumulative emissions, meaning smaller projects cannot be dismissed as insignificant. “In this case, Shell’s project, or any isolated project, cannot be dismissed as too small to matter,” van der Berg explained. South African courts are constitutionally obliged to consider international law when interpreting rights, which means the ICJ’s advisory opinion could be a powerful tool in legal arguments.
“For fishing communities, it’s not only about the risk of oil spills,” van der Berg said. “It’s about the long-term climate harm from burning fossil fuels. This is a strengthened lever they can use in court to protect their rights, livelihoods, and environment.”
Listen to the full audio below:
VOC News
Photo: Pixabay
