Say, What Does The ICJ’s Climate Cult Ruling Mean For The US?

Hint: not much

The World Court just ruled countries can be held liable for climate change damage – what does that mean for the US?

The International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025 declaring that all countries have a legal obligation to protect and prevent harm to the climate.

The court, created as part of the United Nations in 1945, affirmed that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. (giant snip)

In the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have much legal impact, despite a long-standing constitutional principle that “international law is part of U.S. law.”

U.S. courts rarely treat international law that has not been incorporated into domestic law as binding. And the U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in previous climate cases.

Contentious cases before international tribunals can be brought by one country against another, but they require the consent of all the countries involved. So there is little chance that the United States’ responsibility for climate harms will be adjudicated by the World Court anytime soon.

Really, the only “long-standing constitutional principle” is when a treaty is signed and ratified by the US Senate. International law is not part of US law. Only treaties, but, that doesn’t mean the US is going to follow all the laws passed by other countries, and, damned sure not an unhinged court of which the US is no party to.

But, the ruling does make the climate cult lawyers happy

(Climate Home News) Among the ICJ pronouncements, its judges said government activities that support the expansion of fossil fuels – including by private actors – may represent an “internationally wrongful act”. They also said that historically large polluters could be liable to pay reparations for the damage caused by their contributions to the climate crisis.

In US courts, the advisory opinion “will strengthen the claims made by climate activists suing the federal and state governments, and also strengthen the claims of states and cities that are suing fossil fuel companies to claim damages”, said Ashfaq Khalfan, director of climate justice at Oxfam America. (snip)

Phillips of the UCS argued it would be impossible for the US government to ignore the ICJ opinion entirely. “Regardless of what their feelings are, they can’t dismiss this ruling just because they don’t like it,” she told Climate Home. “[It] has shown that countries around the world are bound by international law to address climate change.”

Well, yes we can. I just find it interesting that the cult is super-intent on using lawsuits to force people to comply with the Beliefs that the Warmists won’t practice themselves, nor can get through in legislatures.

The post Say, What Does The ICJ’s Climate Cult Ruling Mean For The US? appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.