The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has handed down a landmark opinion on climate — and it leaves no room for Germany to hide. Friedrich Merz’s go-to excuse — that Germany is just a small player in global climate action – no longer flies. On the contrary: From now on, even our country could be held accountable in court if our governments‘ climate policies fall short. Besides its political impact, the ruling also offers a blast of hope for further change: This historic breakthrough was sparked by a group of everyday young citizens.

Merz’s “too small to matter” argument? Dismissed.
The Advisory Opinion on Climate by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sends a clear message to all nations, including Germany: Do your part. No more excuses. Friedrich Merz can no longer hide behind the claim that Germany’s contribution to climate protection is just a drop in the ocean and therefore not really important.

The ICJ Opinion clearly states: Every country is obligated to help meet the 2015 Paris climate goals. Its Paragraph 277 even states verbatim that this also holds true, if any country’s individual climate action “is environmentally insignificant in isolation”. Even countries that have not signed the Paris Agreement are still bound to this under Customary International Law, as Markus Behring, Professor of European and International Law at the University of Cambridge commented during an assessment of the ruling at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) this week.

Germany as historical polluter No. 6 carries special responsibility
The court goes even further: It confirms that history’s leading polluters – those countries which have caused the biggest climate damage over time — carry a special responsibility for climate action. Germany ranks sixth on that list, not even counting emissions it has caused abroad.

But the ICJ’s ruling does not stop at industrialized countries. It also puts emerging and developing nations on notice that they, too, must do their part to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The court even raises the bar and goes a step further than the Paris and Glasgow climate summits: It no longer defines the reduction of global heating to 1.5°C as an “ambition”, but sets it as a legal limit.

What this means for Germany: Real climate action becomes legally enforceable.
So what does that mean for Germany? The ICJ ruling gives a serious boost to a case before the Federal Constitutional Court which demands that the government reverse recent rollbacks to Germany’s 2021 Climate Protection Law. The decision in this case, which has been brought forward by the organizations Germanwatch and Greenpeace alongside more than individual 54,000 claimants, is expected for later this year.

Although the ICJ ruling is technically just an “advisory opinion”, it sets a legal benchmark – one that future legislation must follow. In doing so, it also defines the legal grounds by which states climate policies can be challenged in court. What this means: Countries whose climate laws fall short can be sued — and forced to pay damages. What is also crucial: The ICJ opinion does not refer to government-declared climate targets, but to measurable outcomes in actual emissions reduction. Tim Bosch of the Centre for Climate and Foreign Policy of the German Council on Foreign Relations explained Thursday: “Countries are legally liable for carbon emissions caused by companies operating from their territory.”

Countries are liable for emissions from their soil.
That should serve as a wake-up call to the current governing coalition under Friedrich Merz. It is time to stop hiding behind excuses, distractions and toothless declaratioons of intent.

It will also become harder to simply brush off the repeated climate failures in Germany’s building and transport sectors — failures currently overseen by SPD- and CDU-led ministries and by SPD- and FDP-led ones under the previous coalition government. In 2024, the building sector in Germany overshot its emissions limit by 4.9 million tons of carbon dioxide. The transport sector did so by a whopping 18 million tons, according to the German Environment Agency.

Just imagine those emissions as a thick black cloud hanging in our air — the same air we breathe every single day. The air which our children breathe. Our elderly. The sick. Even the healthy among us, getting a little less so with every breath.

Faced with this toxic cloud, do we really want to keep arguing about speed limits on highways? About heat pumps? Or play political chess over which ministry gets to move slower in fighting the climate crisis?

More than a political win: A victory of hope.
“This ruling is momentous”, said Markus Gehring, Professor of European and International Law at Cambridge University, speaking at the DGAP on Thursday. But it is more than that. Alongside its legal significance and political consequences, the ICJ’s decision also tells another powerful story. And this is a story of hope, in a time in when so many people and especially so many young feel voiceless, powerless and unheard.

The legal push that could force heads of government to change course was initiated by a group of students and recent graduates. Vishal Prasad, their campaign lead, is merely 28 today, Siosiua Veikune, one of his fellow campaigners, another three years younger.

Why Goliath should fear the Davids of this world
A mere 27 students from the Pacific Islands — a region immediately threatened by rising sea levels – had sparked the initial case ruled by the ICJ this week. They called on people to share their stories about what the crisis means in their daily lives — stories from homes where the ocean creeps a little closer every day.

It was these people, telling their stories, inspiring others, rallying their communities, who were the driving force behind the momentous ruling that will likely have a major impact also the upcoming COP30 in Brazil this November.

Back in 2019, when Vishal Prasad and Siosiua Veikune and their fellow students started their journey, they could only hope that their voices would be heard – maybe someday, if they could get others to listen, if they could get politicians to join in. There must have been many days of discouragement. What could a handful of 20-somethings from Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu possibly change?

Change starts with people – not politics
Six years later, their story is about much more than a legal win. It is a powerful message of hope which shows: This is how change begins – not with courts, not with governments, but with people. With individuals.

Hope is not certainty that we will succeed. It is the choice to act despite uncertainty – because it matters. Because uncertainty still holds room for action. Because small beginnings can lead to major change. And that message is political, too.