From Symbolic Interactions to Accountability: COP29 and the ICJ’s Climate Ruling

Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an historic advisory opinion affirming that nation states have legal obligations to protect the climate system and that failure to act may constitute an internationally wrongful act. The ruling, requested by the UN General Assembly and led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu (one of the Small Island Developing States), marks a turning point in climate accountability. It confirms that climate harm is not just unjust, it is unlawful.

This development resonates deeply with the arguments I presented earlier this month at the 2025 Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE) Conference in Montréal, as part of Network L: Regulation and Governance. My paper, “Negotiating the Global Boiling Point: Symbolic Interactions at COP29,” explored how climate negotiations function as symbolic performances, shaped by contested meanings, strategic political ambiguity, and internalized institutional constraints.

At COP29, negotiators produced symbolic legitimacy, particularly in the climate finance quantum and gender justice negotiations, without delivering binding commitments. The ICJ’s ruling now challenges those symbolic decisions. It asserts that voluntary pledges are not enough, and that states may be held responsible for failing to regulate emissions, subsidizing fossil fuels, or erasing vulnerable voices from climate policy.

The ICJ opinion also reinforces the governmentality framework I used in my analysis. It shows how international law now recognizes the discursive architecture of climate governance, where governments operate not just through coercion, but through the normalization of state regulations to the point where negotiations are no longer organic but pre-structured by power. COP29’s vague finance targets and diluted gender language were not just political compromises; they were shaped by internalized constraints that the ICJ now calls into question.

Perhaps most strikingly, the ICJ affirms that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. This reframes climate negotiations as human rights obligations, not just diplomatic exercises. It opens the door to reparations, litigation, and renewed scrutiny of high-emitting countries, including those, like the U.S., that helped shape COP29 outcomes while preparing to exit the Paris Agreement again.

While the ICJ opinion is advisory and does not compel immediate action, it carries significant legal weight. It sets the groundwork for state-to-state litigation, especially by vulnerable nations disproportionately affected by climate harm. Countries like the U.S. and Russia have historically resisted binding climate obligations; SIDS like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and the Maldives are uniquely positioned to invoke this ruling in future cases, either at the ICJ or through international human rights bodies. Suing a major power is a high-stakes move, but one that may be necessary to shift the balance of climate accountability. The symbolic scaffolding of past COP agreements may now face legal action in courtrooms on a global stage.

In short, the ICJ ruling transforms the symbolic terrain I analyzed at COP29 into a legal battlefield. It affirms that the meanings negotiated in climate summits carry consequences, and that symbolic consensus is no longer sufficient. For scholars, activists, and negotiators alike, this is a call to rethink the architecture of climate diplomacy. However, there still remains the issue of legal authority and enforcement; which Parties are strong enough to hold each other accountable? And, with COP30 just around the corner, one important question continues to reverberate: will the Parties listen?