\u00a0<\/p>\n
[By Angela van der Berg]<\/em><\/p>\n The International Court of Justice\u2019s landmark\u00a0advisory opinion on climate change\u00a0has come in handy for South African communities that are trying to stop global oil company Shell from drilling for oil and gas off the coast.<\/p>\n The opinion, handed down by the world\u2019s highest court in July 2025, sets out what all governments are legally required to do to tackle climate change. It\u00a0confirmed\u00a0that:<\/p>\n The advisory opinion is already being used in South Africa by a community and environmental law organization,\u00a0Natural Justice, and a sustainable development advocacy group,\u00a0The Green Connection, in their\u00a0appeal\u00a0against a government\u00a0decision\u00a0to allow Shell to drill up to five exploration and appraisal wells off the coast of the Northern Cape province.<\/p>\n Their\u00a0appeal\u00a0says the South African government has not considered how Shell\u2019s oil exploration will contribute to climate change.<\/p>\n I am an environmental law specialist who researches how international and domestic law can be used to advance climate justice in South Africa and across Africa. In my view, the advisory opinion could shift the balance in courtrooms across Africa in favor of environmental justice and human rights groups. It confirms that governments must align fossil fuel decisions with their duty to prevent harm. This gives communities a stronger legal basis to argue that fossil fuel expansion undermines both their rights and their country\u2019s climate obligations.<\/p>\n South Africa is\u00a0already experiencing\u00a0worsening floods, droughts and storms.\u00a0Every bit of warming\u00a0increases these risks.<\/p>\n The country\u2019s 2024\u00a0Climate Change Act\u00a0sets out a pathway to cut emissions and build resilience. Yet fossil fuel projects are still being approved by the government.<\/p>\n What the Shell appeal is all about<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In June 2025, South Africa\u2019s Department of Mineral Resources granted Shell an\u00a0environmental authorization\u00a0to drill for oil and gas in the ocean on the country\u2019s west coast.\u00a0This area\u00a0is ecologically sensitive, supporting whales, fish stocks and small-scale fishing communities.<\/p>\n Natural Justice and The Green Connection argue in their appeal that the authorization is unlawful and defective. They give the following reasons.<\/p>\n The\u00a0environmental impact assessment\u00a0assumed an oil spill could be stopped far more quickly than is realistic, and downplayed the risks of ultra-deepwater drilling, where equipment failure or a blowout on the scale of the 2010\u00a0Deepwater Horizon disaster\u00a0is possible. These risks threaten marine ecosystems and small-scale fishers\u2019 livelihoods.<\/p>\n Some of Shell\u2019s safety and emergency response\u00a0plans\u00a0were not included in the assessment. This meant the public and decision-makers could not evaluate whether Shell is able to manage a major disaster. Their absence doesn\u2019t mean Shell has no plans at all, but it does mean the decision was taken without a transparent review of those plans.<\/p>\n No baseline studies (basic surveys of the marine life and ecosystems in the exact area) were done before approval. Without this information, the risks from spills, and pollution to whales, fish and corals, were likely underestimated.<\/p>\n The appeal also says that there was no consideration about how future production might affect South Africa\u2019s ability to meet its Paris Agreement commitments, and that drilling for oil and gas is outdated as these are not renewable energies.<\/p>\n Any oil spills could pollute beyond South African borders, potentially reaching neighboring Namibian waters. However, the environmental impact assessment ignored effects on Namibian fisheries, tourism and coastal communities.<\/p>\n Finally, the approval failed to comply with the\u00a0Integrated Coastal Management Act, which says the South African government must protect sensitive ecosystems for the long-term benefit of communities and future generations.<\/p>\n How the International Court of Justice opinion has been used in the appeal<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The advisory opinion is not legally binding. However, the obligations it has confirmed, in international climate and customary law, are. It is the most authoritative interpretation yet of what governments must do to prevent further climate change.<\/p>\n Under South Africa\u2019s\u00a0constitution, courts must take international law into account when interpreting rights.<\/p>\n This gives organizations like Natural Justice and The Green Connection (and others across Africa) a powerful new tool. They can:<\/p>\n A turning point<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Across Africa, where\u00a045 countries\u00a0are exploring for oil, gas or coal, the court\u2019s opinion raises the stakes by suggesting that continued fossil fuel expansion could breach international obligations.<\/p>\n The Shell appeal is a test for whether South African courts will accept that fossil fuel expansion in the era of the climate crisis is inconsistent with the constitution and international law.<\/p>\n Win or lose, the case marks a shift. For the first time, African activists are wielding the United Nations\u2019 highest court as part of their legal strategy. As climate impacts intensify, that strategy may prove decisive in shaping Africa\u2019s energy future.<\/p>\n Angela van der Berg is Director of the Global Environmental Law Centre and\u00a0Associate Professor, Department of Public Law & Jurisprudence at University of the Western Cape.<\/em><\/p>\n This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and may be found in its original form here<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \t\n
\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/263972\/count.gif?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/BR><\/p>\n