The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) landmark Climate Change Advisory Opinion, delivered on 23 July 2025, has ignited a critical debate over the role of land-based mining in the global green energy transition.The opinion underscores states' legal obligations to prevent environmental harm, particularly from deforestation and pollution linked to extractive industries, while balancing the demand for minerals required for renewable technologies.This analysis focuses on the implications for land-based mining, drawing on the court's framework for addressing climate obligations and the urgent calls from vulnerable nations for systemic change.
Legal Obligations and Environmental Risks of Land-Based Mining
The ICJ's opinion clarifies that states must fulfill due diligence obligations to prevent harm from greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation, extending beyond fossil fuels to include mining activities.Land-based mining, which supplies critical minerals for electric vehicles and solar grids, is now under scrutiny for its role in deforestation and marine pollution.According to the World Resource Institute, mining has encroached on 1.65 million km² of land in Brazil, with 60% located in the Amazon, leading to the loss of 1.4 million hectares of tree cover between 2001 and 2020.This deforestation releases 36 million tonnes of CO₂ annually, exacerbating climate risks and threatening biodiversity.
Source:
opiniojuris.orgThe court's emphasis on the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement's REDD+ framework further obliges states to address deforestation driven by mining.REDD+ aims to reduce emissions from forest degradation, yet land-based mining continues to push into tropical forests, with nickel mining in Indonesia linked to a doubling of deforestation rates.The ICJ's opinion highlights that states must enforce environmental laws to prevent pollution from mining discharges, which have contaminated rivers in the Democratic Republic of Congo and caused marine ecosystem damage in Indonesia.
Small island developing states, disproportionately affected by climate change, have framed the ICJ's opinion as a pivotal moment for climate justice.Antigua and Barbuda's Prime Minister Gaston Browne emphasized the need for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to end subsidies for polluting industries, while Tuvalu's Feleti Penitala Teo warned that 50% of his nation's land could be submerged by 2050 due to sea-level rise.These leaders argue that the green energy transition must not merely shift pollution from one source to another but address the systemic inequities that leave vulnerable nations bearing the brunt of climate impacts.
Source:
press.un.orgThe ICJ's focus on "carbon sinks" and the obligation to enhance forest carbon stocks aligns with the demands of Pacific nations like Vanuatu, which called for an "independent crime of ecocide" to hold states accountable for environmental destruction.Meanwhile, the court's recognition of the marine environment's vulnerability to land-based pollution underscores the interconnectedness of climate risks, as highlighted by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Agency's finding that 80% of marine pollution originates from land-based sources.
The advisory opinion mandates that states adopt measures to mitigate deforestation and pollution, including risk assessments and compliance with international environmental standards.For land-based mining, this means integrating REDD+ mechanisms into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and enforcing stricter regulations on waste management and habitat protection.However, critics argue that without binding financial mechanisms or enforcement tools, these obligations risk becoming symbolic.As the green energy transition accelerates, the ICJ's opinion serves as a clarion call for balancing mineral extraction with environmental stewardship.The coming months will test whether states can translate legal obligations into actionable policies that safeguard both climate goals and the rights of communities disproportionately affected by extractive industries.