The sun streamed into my office last Wednesday afternoon as I watched history unfold from thousands of miles away. At the Peace Palace in The Hague, the International Court of Justice delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.
This ruling didn’t come from nowhere. It followed a youth-led campaign that began in the Pacific with law students from the University of the South Pacific, young people from islands confronting rising seas and disappearing coastlines. Their vision was to use international law to clarify the duties of governments to respond to the climate crisis, giving the issue legal teeth.
From Fiji to France, Kampala to Kuwait, young people organised. Toolkits were shared. Letters were sent. Side events, workshops and diplomatic meetings unfolded across regions. I joined in the final stretch, working to rally support from the Arab League, briefing decision-makers and reminding them that climate change does not respect borders, wealth, or distance.
From the bench, the Court made clear: climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat”, and states are obligated to not only curb emissions but also regulate private industry, fund adaptation and ensure remedies for those harmed. Inaction could now amount to an internationally wrongful act, grounded in human rights and customary international law. Basically, preventing significant environmental harm and safeguarding human rights are two sides of the same coin.
This translates into four immediate implications. First, national climate plans must be robust, transparent and grounded in historical responsibility. Second, governments must deliver financial and technical support to vulnerable communities. Third, people displaced by climate impacts must not be denied refuge and nations threatened by rising seas continue to retain legal recognition. Fourth, any government that drags its feet now faces potential legal challenges at home or abroad.
Already, lawyers are citing the opinion in litigation in Europe and in challenges to regulatory rollbacks in the United States. This legal precedent equips activists and policymakers with a powerful tool: climate justice is no longer a moral appeal alone. It is written into international jurisprudence.
As I watched the judgment stream in, I thought of home. I thought of the longer summers, the failing rains and the conversations I have had with young Omanis eager to act. Although the decision was delivered in The Hague, its heartbeat belongs to young islanders who refused to wait for systems to catch up. Their government stood beside them and soon the world listened. This model of youth-led strategy, supported by institutions, offers a lesson that transcends geography.
A similar spark is already present here. In a regional survey I co-led during my time at the Arab Youth Council for Climate Change, 77 per cent of young Omanis said our country must do more to address the climate crisis. This is a generation that wants to restore ecosystems, rethink building codes and design careers that serve both people and planet. Their potential is not limited to the local. What they need are institutions that listen, partners that invest in their vision, and leadership that sees them as allies in shaping the future.
The advisory opinion affirms what science and lived experience have long suggested. Delay is no longer defensible. The law now supports the urgency that young people have carried for years. As we turn from international courts back to our classrooms, council halls and boardrooms, we do so with a responsibility that cannot be ignored. Oman’s net-zero 2050 target must now shift from aspiration to action. Our future, like that of every nation, depends on whether we can transform legal obligation into real progress.
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
