A Ray of Sunshine: New Zealand Litigants Empowered by International Climate Ruling

Keywords: climate change, New Zealand, International Court of Justice, climate litigation, emissions reduction, Paris Agreement, 1.5°C target, legal responsibility
Back to News List
Thursday, 24 July 2025

A Ray of Sunshine: New Zealand Litigants Empowered by International Climate Ruling

A landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has sent shockwaves through New Zealand's climate policy landscape, igniting renewed legal battles and public discourse over the government's climate commitments. The decision, which asserts that nations can be held legally accountable for the climate damage caused by their greenhouse gas emissions, has been hailed by climate advocates as a 'ray of sunshine' in an otherwise bleak situation.

The court ruled that governments are legally obligated to set climate targets consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C, not 2°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. This has placed New Zealand under increased scrutiny, particularly as the government is currently on track to fall significantly short of its 2030 emissions reduction targets.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged the challenges but has been cautious in making public commitments beyond exploring options to meet the targets. He has faced criticism for not explicitly supporting offshore emissions reduction deals, even though officials have warned that failing to address the gap could lead to international scrutiny.

Legal Challenges and the Road Ahead

Jessica Palairet of Lawyers for Climate Action emphasized that the court's ruling clarifies that mere pledges to meet climate targets are not enough. She pointed out that New Zealand's current approach, which relies heavily on offshore carbon credits, may not be in line with international legal obligations.

The ruling also raises questions about the alignment of New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target, which extends to 2035, with the goal of keeping global temperatures within 1.5°C. Palairet noted that the government's own advisory panel had warned that current plans might not reflect the highest possible ambition or New Zealand's fair share of global emissions reductions.

The court's opinion could also affect New Zealand's plans to lower its methane reduction targets. Palairet said that reducing the methane target to 14% by 2050, as the government is considering, might not align with international law, as the current target is consistent with a 2°C rise.

A Beacon of Hope for Litigants

Iwi climate leader Mike Smith, who recently won the right to sue major energy and agricultural companies for their role in climate change, welcomed the ruling as a beacon of hope. He said the decision strengthens his case and provides a legal foundation for future litigation against the government.

Environmental lawyers are already discussing how to leverage the ruling in New Zealand courts, with a focus on challenging the government's current emissions reduction plans and its support for fossil fuel activities.

The ICJ's advisory opinion, while not binding, carries significant legal and moral authority and is expected to influence climate litigation globally, including in New Zealand.

As the government continues to navigate the complexities of meeting its climate commitments, the international ruling serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical responsibilities that come with climate leadership. It also highlights the growing role of civil society and legal action in shaping environmental policy.