By the African Union, Office of the Legal Counsel

On 29 March 2023, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously adopted Resolution 77/276, requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. This marked an historic turning point for international environmental law, one that the African Union (AU) seized as a crucial opportunity to elevate the legal dimensions of climate justice.

Nearly two years later, in December 2024, the AU appeared before the Court during its oral hearings, becoming one of over 100 States and organizations to make submissions. Representing 55 Member States, the AU spoke with moral clarity and legal precision: climate change is not only an environmental and economic crisis, but a threat to rights, development, and the future of entire generations, particularly across Africa.

Climate justice and Africa’s unequal burden

From the outset, the AU’s submissions underscored a stark and deeply rooted inequity. Africa accounts for less than 3% of cumulative global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions yet remains one of the most acutely impacted regions. Rising temperatures, persistent drought, desertification, flooding, and food insecurity have become chronic challenges, eroding decades of development gains and threatening the right to a dignified life for millions.

Citing recent findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the AU emphasized that mortality from floods, droughts, and storms is 15 times higher in highly vulnerable countries, many of which are in Africa. As outlined in the AU’s written statement to the ICJ, the continent faces annual adaptation costs of between USD 30 billion and USD 50 billion, amounting to up to 3% of regional gross domestic product (GDP) in Sub-Saharan Africa alone.

Yet despite these needs, climate finance flows remain deeply inadequate. In 2023, African nations paid an estimated USD 85 billion in external debt service, nearly three times what the entire continent received in climate-related support. This fiscal paradox, of being forced to repay debts while scrambling to fund adaptation, was central to the AU’s message: the international legal order must recognize and address the disproportionate burdens borne by the least responsible.

The Nairobi Declaration on Climate Change and Call to Action, adopted at the inaugural Africa Climate Summit in 2023, echoed this sentiment. It called for a new global financing architecture rooted in justice, equity, and historical responsibility. The AU’s submission before the Court gave legal voice to these aspirations, insisting that climate justice must be a guiding principle in determining States’ obligations.

Climate change as a human rights crisis

The AU’s intervention also made it clear: climate change is not simply a technical or environmental challenge; it is a human rights emergency. The rights to life, health, food, water, housing, and development are increasingly undermined by climate-related shocks. And these impacts are not evenly felt. Women, children, Indigenous communities, and climate-displaced populations bear the heaviest toll.

Drawing on jurisprudence from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the AU highlighted how climate-induced harms are interwoven with broader rights violations. In her oral statement before the Court, Professor Hajer Gueldich, the legal counsel representing the AU Commission, called for a legal interpretation that embraces both climate science and human dignity, urging the Court to recognize that international climate obligations must be interpreted through the lens of human rights law.

This framing reflects Agenda 2063’s commitment to “an Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.”But it also resonates globally. The advisory opinion process has opened new space for the ICJ to confirm that the rights of present and future generations are not just ethical aspirations but binding legal commitments.

Legal pathways for climate justice

The AU presented a legal framework before the ICJ, emphasizing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as established in the 1992 Rio Declaration. The argument centered on the disproportionate historical emissions of the Global North, asserting that this disparity necessitates a greater responsibility in mitigating climate change impacts. Professor Gueldich argued for the legal entrenchment of CBDR within existing treaties, including the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Furthermore, the AU invoked erga omnes obligations, emphasizing that the nature of climate change, as a global threat, necessitates that all States have obligations towards the international community as a whole to address it. Specifically, the AU sought a judicial directive from the ICJ, demanding concrete actions, to wit, emissions reduction, adaptation funding, and acknowledgement of historical responsibilities. This approach aims to transform aspirational legal frameworks into actionable mandates, aligning with the objectives of Agenda 2063.

Reparations, responsibility, and the right to development

The AU advocated for reparations, arguing that adaptation measures alone are insufficient to address the existing development deficit caused by climate change. Citing IPCC assessments, the AU highlighted the significant adaptation costs borne by African nations, exacerbated by the shortfall in promised climate finance and the burden of external debt.

The reparative agenda, as articulated in the Nairobi Declaration, calls for financial mechanisms such as grants, debt relief, and a fund linked to historical emissions. Policy recommendations include carbon taxation and reparations pools, with the ICJ’s advisory opinion sought to solidify these principles as legal obligations. This approach underscores the right to development as a fundamental legal entitlement.

The AU’s intervention at the ICJ represents a pivotal moment in the pursuit of global climate justice. A decisive ruling has the potential to redefine international legal norms, compelling states to acknowledge and address their climate responsibilities. The AU’s proactive stance, from the Africa Climate Summit to the ICJ proceedings, underscores a demand for a legal framework that prioritizes intergenerational equity. The urgency of the situation necessitates immediate action from States, reflecting the significance of the AU’s legal arguments. The 2025 decision is anticipated to set a precedent for long-term climate governance.

* * *

This Guest Article is part of a project that seeks to raise awareness and build momentum and knowledge around the ICJ advisory opinion on obligations of States in respect of climate change and to promote a better understanding of the implications of the advisory opinion among sustainable development decision makers.