Written together with Ph.D Deniece Melissa Aiken
The climate is changing. And now, the rules have too. On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion declaring that countries are legally obligated to take serious action on climate change. The ICJ didn’t just deliver an opinion. It handed the shipping world a legal ultimatum. This is no longer about voluntary green targets or industry pledges. Maritime emissions are now a legal issue, and failure to act could put states and private actors like shipowners on the wrong side of the law.
The world’s top court has delivered a wake-up call. On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion declaring that countries are legally obligated to take serious action on climate change. The ruling treats shipborne CO₂ as marine pollution under UNCLOS and reinforces MARPOL Annex VI, compelling states to enact and enforce stricter laws if the IMO moves too slowly. And that includes tackling emissions from international shipping. Shipping emissions are officially marine pollution under international law.
It means that compliance with IMO rules alone is not enough; States must go beyond. This legal interpretation shifts maritime emissions from a regulatory choice to a global binding duty. The ICJ recognized the key role of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Regulations such as MARPOL Annex VI and other IMO treaties are vital. But the catch is that states must comply IMO frameworks but also have a duty to keep strengthening them. The law demands ongoing progress, not just adherence to existing rules. In other words, if the IMO isn’t moving fast enough, countries must take matters into their own hands, through stricter national regulations, regional schemes, or even climate litigation.
Just months before the ICJ ruling, in April 2025 the IMO’s MEPC 83 session laid out regulatory developments in shipping going far beyond previous decisions. These include the Global Fuel Intensity standards (GFI), carbon pricing, and new emission control zones. The IMO is also fast-tracking rules on ammonia fuel, onboard carbon capture, biofuel blends, and methane leakage. The takeaway? The regulatory environment is tightening. And the ICJ opinion gives it even more force.
This legal and regulatory shift isn’t just aimed at governments. Shipowners are on the hook too. Here’s how. If your vessels are heavy polluters, you’re now part of a recognized source of marine pollution under UNCLOS. That means lawsuits, stricter enforcement, and insurance risks are on the horizon. Additionally, Governments and charterers will increasingly demand emissions compliance, ESG reporting, and proof of climate risk mitigation. Shipowners that can’t prove progress may lose business or access to capital. Similarly, technology and fuel investments are no longer optional but required. Shipowners must retrofit vessels for efficiency, adopt cleaner fuels (ammonia, methanol, hydrogen), integrate digital tools to optimize voyages, and plan for carbon costs in financial forecasts. There will be more inspections, stricter documentation checks, and enforcement tied to both IMO rules and national climate obligations. Non-compliant ships may be delayed, fined, or blacklisted. And shipowners face reputational risks for operating a dirty fleet and risk being subject to legal action as a result.
The smart money is already moving. Shipowners investing in clean tech and compliance today will save later on carbon levies, insurance premiums, regulatory fines, and legal headaches. Moreover, they are investing on human capital – knowledge of emissions and ways to decrease them.
This isn’t just a regulatory update. It’s a fundamental shift in the legal landscape for one of the world’s most important sectors. The ICJ has confirmed that States must act; the IMO must evolve; and shipowners must clean up. You can’t do the bare minimum anymore. The law is catching up. The courts are watching. And so are your clients, investors, and the public.
Source: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Tales of Talsinki 