Why is the ICJ silent about the gender aspect of climate justice?

DHAKA – On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion on states’ obligations related to climate change, a long-awaited milestone in the global push for climate justice. However, the opinion falls short in addressing crucial justice dimensions, particularly from a feminist perspective.

The ICJ addressed two key questions: what legal obligations states hold concerning climate change, and what consequences arise from failing those obligations, especially for vulnerable populations and future generations. The court confirmed that these obligations stem both from climate treaties and customary international law, human rights law, and general principles of international law.

Substantively, the court affirmed that all states must act to prevent “significant harm” to the environment and to human rights threatened by climate change. This includes a duty of due diligence to regulate emissions and a binding obligation to cooperate globally. Crucially, the court elevated the 1.5-degree-Celsius target of Paris Agreement from an aspirational goal to a legally relevant benchmark, meaning the countries’ climate pledges may now be judged against it in legal terms.

The opinion underscored that inaction violates core human rights: the rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment. It emphasised that states could bear international responsibility for failing to act in accordance with scientific evidence and well-established legal norms. This pressurises countries to enhance their next Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and scale up financial and technical support for developing countries, based on the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

The ICJ’s recognition that climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) can retain legal personality even if rising seas physically submerge them is groundbreaking. It enhances their legal standing in climate negotiations and opens the door to potential reparation claims in case of climate inaction by states or corporations.

However, the ICJ’s opinion stops short of addressing one of the most persistent blind spots in global climate governance: the gendered dimensions of climate justice.

From a feminist lens, the opinion remains overly abstract and state-centric, failing to recognise how intersecting vulnerabilities shape real-world experiences. Although it references “vulnerable groups,” it does not disaggregate or meaningfully analyse how women, indigenous peoples, gender minorities, and those at the margins of poverty and displacement face disproportionate climate impacts.

Feminist legal scholars argue that this was a missed opportunity to incorporate gender-specific obligations into the climate governance framework. By not applying an intersectional approach, the opinion risks reinforcing structural inequalities rooted in patriarchal systems that govern access to resources, political voice, and burdens of unpaid labour. Women in the Global South, for instance, often serve as frontline defenders of the environment while being excluded from formal climate decision-making and finance. The ICJ’s silence on this reinforces a justice framework that is procedural but not transformative.

Equally problematic is the court’s omission of gender-responsive remedies. For instance, it does not specify how reparations in case of litigations should meet the distinct needs of women and marginalised communities. As a result, future remedial mechanisms may be gender-blind, failing to ensure access to climate-resilient infrastructure, relocation support, or climate finance tailored to the most affected.

The ICJ advisory can be contrasted with the 2024 advisory opinion by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which explicitly linked climate harms to gender-based violence, land rights, and systemic disenfranchisement of women. This reflects deeper epistemic and representational gaps within international law. The ICJ’s bench remains predominantly male and drawn from elite legal circles. While representation alone doesn’t guarantee justice, diverse perspectives, particularly from the Global South and feminist legal traditions, are essential to developing jurisprudence that responds to the full complexity of climate injustice.

Still, all is not lost. Feminist activists and legal advocates can leverage the ICJ’s affirmation of human rights and intergenerational equity to press for gender-sensitive laws and policies at national and regional levels. Courts around the world may cite the opinion when interpreting state obligations, and civil society can invoke it to demand inclusive governance, reparative finance, and gender-responsive climate budgeting. Feminist principles can be embedded into the architecture of mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund and the Green Climate Fund at forums like the COP negotiations.

Whether ICJ’s opinion leads to a more just climate order will depend on how civil society, legal practitioners, and policymakers push its boundaries. Without centring those most impacted by climate breakdown, the law risks becoming a tool of legitimacy rather than liberation. Thus, the ask at national level is, Bangladesh should adopt a climate justice legislation that is gender-sensitive and transformational.

Farah Kabir is country director at ActionAid Bangladesh

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.