Climate action is now necessitated by international law, a significant development for the global community
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a landmark ruling that underscores the legally binding obligation of states to combat climate change. This ruling, delivered unanimously, sets a significant precedent by framing climate action as a legal obligation, not just a moral or political choice[1][2].
The ICJ established that states must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cooperate internationally, and exercise due diligence based on the latest scientific consensus. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to legal responsibility, requiring states to cease wrongful acts, guarantee non-repetition, and provide full reparations where applicable[1][2].
This ruling marks a turning point in international climate governance by elevating climate obligations from aspirational goals to enforceable legal duties. The Court connected these responsibilities to both environmental treaties (like the Paris Agreement) and human rights treaties, emphasizing that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential for fundamental human rights[1][2].
The ICJ also reinforced that all states, regardless of size or development, must act urgently to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This includes regulating domestic actors and supporting vulnerable countries[1][2].
The ruling affirmed a strict due diligence standard based on IPCC science, meaning states must continuously update and strengthen their climate action plans and cannot evade responsibility through legal technicalities such as lex specialis[2]. The ICJ also emphasized the necessity of international cooperation, recognizing the climate system as a global commons requiring joint efforts to prevent significant harm[2].
Potential implications of this ruling include increased pressure on governments to enhance national climate policies and commit to more ambitious emissions reductions, under threat of international legal accountability. It also provides greater legal recourse for states or entities harmed by climate inaction, possibly leading to international claims, demands for reparations, or enforcement measures grounded in this ruling[1][2].
The ruling also strengthens the legal basis for climate justice movements and vulnerable states to hold major emitters accountable. It explicitly ties environmental protection to human rights obligations, empowering nations, groups, or people harmed by climate impacts to demand further reparations from major polluters[1][2].
This ruling is expected to take center stage at the U.N. General Assembly meeting in September and COP30 in November. It may also lead to the evolution and expansion of international environmental law, with this ruling serving as a precedent that substantiates stronger enforcement mechanisms for climate commitments globally[1][2].
The ICJ's case was the court's largest-ever, with testimonies from nearly 100 countries and international organizations. The ruling was triggered by an assignment given to 27 university students in Fiji, starting a five-year quest by Pacific island countries to clarify states' legal obligations to tackle climate change.
Notably, the ICJ ruled that climate migrants should not be returned to countries where their lives are at risk. It also affirmed that island states would continue to legally exist even if inundated by sea level rise. The ruling holds states accountable for companies under their jurisdiction which fuel the climate crisis.
The ICJ's ruling has been met with widespread praise. Vishal Prasad, one of the law students leading the campaign, described the ruling as a "transformative" moment. Farhana Yamin, a British lawyer and activist, described it as an "amazing win" and a turning point for climate justice. Jorge Viñuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge, stated that the ruling sets a new legal baseline that cuts through the fog and calls a spade a spade[1][2].
However, challenges remain. The decision comes as the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for the second time this year. Additionally, a fund designed to compensate for climate-related damages was established two years ago at COP28, but it has only received a fraction of the costs expected each year.
Despite these challenges, the ICJ's ruling provides a powerful tool for those advocating for climate justice and a healthier planet. It underscores the urgent need for action and the legal consequences of inaction, providing a clear path forward in the fight against climate change.
[1] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/180/180-20210729-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf [2] https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/180
- The ICJ's ruling establishes that states have a legally binding obligation to address climate change, linking the issue to both environmental treaties and human rights treaties.
- This decision elevates climate obligations from aspirational goals to enforceable legal duties, setting a significant precedent in international climate governance.
- All states, regardless of size or development, must act urgently to limit global warming and provide reparations where applicable, as per the ICJ's ruling.
- The ICJ's ruling offers increased legal recourse for states, entities, or individuals harmed by climate inaction, empowering them to demand reparations from major polluters and causing a shift in the fight against climate change.
