Shaping Climate Justice for the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Global Advisory Opinions

By Ms. Nikey Sah, a third-year law student of the BBM- LL.B program

“Intergenerational equity is not merely a moral responsibility, but a legal principle embedded in international environmental law. The present generation holds the environment in trust for generations yet unborn.”

— Judge C.G. Weeramantry, Separate Opinion, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.

We are living through a moment when the impacts of climate change are felt every day, raising critical questions about the duties states owe not just to their citizens today, but to generations yet unborn. What responsibilities do States owe not only to their current populations, but to those who are yet to be born? This question lies at the heart of three historic climate advisory opinion proceedings: before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR); each exploring the legal consequences of climate inaction and environmental harm on future generations. This blog explores how intergenerational equity is being shaped through international advisory opinions and judicial decisions. By examining key cases and legal frameworks, we aim to understand how the rights of future generations are being protected and what this means for the future of climate justice.

Conference: Diplomatic Screening and Expert Commentary on the ICJ Oral Hearings Concerning Climate Justice | Organised as part of the GEN@25 Commemoration

The concept of intergenerational equity was first clearly articulated by Edith Brown Weiss in her seminal 1989 article, “Our Rights and Obligations to Future Generations for the Environment,” where she emphasised the need for legal frameworks that safeguard environmental integrity for future generations. This foundational idea has since spread throughout various legal systems and international agreements.

In South Asia, countries like India have included environmental protection in their constitutions. Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution ask both the government and citizens to take care of the environment, showing a clear commitment to future generations. Nepal’s Constitution also recognises the right to a clean and healthy environment as a basic right, showing that the region values taking care of nature not just for today, but for those who come after us. Similarly, in Pakistan, the courts have also set the standards. In the case Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015), the judiciary clearly states that ignoring climate change can violate people’s rights; a reminder that our actions today directly affect the lives of those in the future.

Globally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement incorporate principles that resonate with intergenerational equity, encouraging nations to consider the long-term impacts of climate change and to act in the interests of both present and future populations. The Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations (2023), the Stockholm Declaration (1972) and the Rio Declaration (1992) already emphasise the importance of sustainable development, which balances current needs with the preservation of resources for future generations. Although no international court has yet explicitly recognised the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations (2023) as binding, their core legal reasoning has already begun to influence climate litigation and advisory proceedings. The Principles articulate how existing human rights obligations, under treaties like the ICCPR and regional charters, must be interpreted in light of their intergenerational dimensions. This interpretive approach is increasingly reflected in the jurisprudence of bodies like ITLOS and in the questions posed to the ICJ by the UN General Assembly. These developments suggest that while intergenerational equity is not yet a binding legal obligation in its own right, it is becoming an important normative guide for interpreting and applying existing international legal duties in climate law and human rights.

The idea that we must protect the planet not only for ourselves but for future generations is becoming a serious legal standard, not just an ethical standard. Across the world, the key international courts and tribunals are now recognising intergenerational equity as a foundational principle in climate law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (2017) affirmed that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous right essential to the realization of other human rights, and while it did not name “intergenerational equity” explicitly, it emphasized that this right is held not only by current individuals but also by “future generations,” laying a normative foundation for the principle in regional human rights law. Additionally, the UN Human Rights Committee, in Teitiota v. New Zealand (2020), acknowledged that climate change may threaten the right to life of future generations, although the claim failed on admissibility grounds. These tribunal decisions demonstrate a growing judicial consensus that international environmental and human rights obligations must increasingly account for long-term impacts and the rights of future generations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is presently deliberating a significant advisory opinion initiated by Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 states. The central message is clear: failure to address climate change is not merely negligent; it may constitute a breach of basic human rights, including the rights to life, health, and dignity. These legal arguments draw continuity from earlier ICJ jurisprudence, such as the 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, which acknowledged the relevance of environmental considerations in interpreting the scope of state obligations.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) further strengthened the legal foundation for climate action in its 2024 advisory opinion, requested by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS). It established that greenhouse gases qualify as marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and emphasised that states must “prevent, reduce, and control” such pollution to safeguard the marine environment over time. In doing so, the Tribunal not only gave countries stronger legal support to address climate change, but also made it clear that UNCLOS requires them to protect the ocean not just for today, but for future generations too. This growing recognition of climate-related obligations under international law is also evident in the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). In Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, while primarily addressing the rights of environmental human rights defenders, the Court recognised that a healthy environment is essential for the full enjoyment of basic human rights. Although it did not explicitly refer to intergenerational equity, it established a crucial legal foundation. A new advisory opinion currently under review is expected to build on this, with the likely outcome that the Court will recognise climate-related harms as affecting the rights of both current and future generations.

Ralph Regenvanu (left), Vanuatu’s special envoy on climate change and the environment; Arnold Kiel Loughman (center), attorney general of Vanuatu; and Ilan Kiloe (right), legal advisor to the Melanesian Spearhead Group attend the advisory opinion sessions at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands on December 2, 2024. (Photo: Selman Aksunger/Anadolu via Getty İmages)

At the same time, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights hasn’t yet issued a specific ruling on climate change, but it has emphasised how environmental damage disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, like rural and indigenous peoples, especially severely. While these decisions don’t directly address the rights of future generations, they show an understanding that the impacts of pollution and degradation last for a long time. Meanwhile, national courts have been more direct. In cases like Leghari v. Pakistan, courts have found that the government’s failure to act on climate change violates people’s fundamental rights and encouraged states to follow through on their climate goals. Similar cases in the Netherlands and Montana have held governments responsible for protecting the environment, not just for today’s citizens but for generations to come. Together, these developments show a growing recognition that ignoring climate change harms the rights and well-being of those who will inherit the planet.

These advisory opinions reach far beyond the courtroom; they influence how countries interact and cooperate on climate issues. They help build common expectations among states, shape treaty negotiations, and strengthen guiding agreements that, while not legally binding, play a crucial role in climate governance. For example, the Paris Agreement’s goals to limit global warming focus on the future, and these opinions make it clear that those goals are more than just aspirational goals; they carry significant legal weight when viewed from the perspective of fairness to both current and future generations. Additionally, new frameworks like the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations are supporting this progress. While not legally binding, these principles emphasise that countries already have firm duties to safeguard the rights of those who have yet to be born, based on existing human rights and environmental laws. This gives advisory opinions greater weight and encourages greater alignment across different areas of international law to achieve lasting climate justice.

International organisations are increasingly recognising the importance of safeguarding the rights of future generations. Institutions like the UN Human Rights Council, UNEP, and the Green Climate Fund are integrating these ideas into their strategies and decision-making. These legal opinions give them a stronger foundation to promote long-term sustainability, raise the voices of young people, and prioritise support for the most vulnerable communities. They also create a sense of accountability among countries—making it harder for governments to defend short-term policies that sacrifice the future for immediate benefits. In this way, these opinions quietly strengthen international cooperation and encourage countries toward more responsible and fair climate action.

United Nations Requests Advisory Opinion on Climate Change from the International Court of Justice (29 March 2023).

The influence of advisory opinions is increasingly shaping how governments plan and govern for the long term, extending well beyond court rulings and international discussions. Wales has set a strong example with its Well-being of Future Generations Act (2015), which requires public bodies to consider the future impact of their decisions, supported by a dedicated Future Generations Commissioner. Similar initiatives are emerging worldwide, such as New Zealand’s proposed Future Generations Bill, Finland’s sustainability-focused youth program, and Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness framework that links well-being with environmental care. These efforts reflect a growing movement to turn international legal principles into practical policies. Governments are increasingly adopting approaches like youth councils, long-term environmental reviews, and budgeting that factors in future impacts. While progress varies and challenges remain, there is a clear legal and ethical determination to help integrate the rights of future generations into today’s decision-making.

Growing up in Nepal, climate change has never felt like some distant problem; it’s part of our daily reality. Communities face landslides every monsoon, glacial lakes are expanding, and the air in our cities keeps getting worse. For young people like me, this isn’t just about numbers or reports, it’s about the world we’re living in now and trying to make better. “The concept of intergenerational equity, that we have a responsibility to safeguard the planet for future generations, holds significant importance in our context.” Nepal’s Constitution reflects this goal: Article 30 promises the right to a clean and healthy environment, and Article 51(g) says the state should take care of nature for those who come after us. But turning these commitments into real action remains a constant struggle. Political instability, lack of resources, and weak implementation often slow things down. Across South Asia, the story is much the same. In Pakistan, courts have linked climate change with basic human rights. India and Bangladesh are working on new climate policies and legal reforms. Yet, young people are rarely part of these conversations. If we want fair and lasting solutions, our voices must be part of the process, not just as a formality, but as a necessity.

The global focus on intergenerational justice guided by evolving legal principles and advisory opinions strengthens what youth climate movements have long emphasised: our future must not be sacrificed for short-term interests. Countries like Wales and New Zealand are already showing how specific laws and institutions can effectively plan for generations to come. Nepal and other South Asian nations possess a strong legal foundation, yet the challenge remains to turn these commitments into meaningful action by involving young people, revising how progress is measured, and prioritising sustainable well-being. Intergenerational justice is more than a legal concept; it represents fairness, respect, and the responsibility to secure a sustainable future for the generations ahead.

The idea that we owe a healthy planet to future generations is no longer just a hopeful thought; it’s becoming part of the law. Courts and international bodies like the ICJ, ITLOS, and IACtHR are now clearly stating that governments have a legal duty to protect the environment for those who come after us. Around the world, from Pakistan to the Netherlands, courts are supporting this by holding leaders accountable when they ignore climate action. But simply recognising the principle isn’t enough. In places like Nepal and across South Asia, where climate change is already a daily struggle, we need to turn legal promises into meaningful change that people can feel. Legal protections don’t matter if they stay locked in documents. Young people who will live with the long-term impacts need to be truly involved in shaping decisions, not just included for appearances. If we want a fairer, more sustainable future, intergenerational justice has to be at the heart of every policy and action.

REFRENCES

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95

https://unfccc.int

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/research/maastricht-principles-human-rights-future-generations

https://www.constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/nepal_constitution_2015_english.pd