Climate change poses a significant threat to all life forms, a groundbreaking decision dictates, prompting nations that are slow to act to take notice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a groundbreaking advisory opinion, establishing that major emitting countries have legal obligations under international law to address climate change. This ruling sets a new baseline for global efforts to combat climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on the issue.

Key Implications for Major Emitting Countries

The ICJ's opinion highlights several key implications for major emitting countries:

Obligation to Reduce Emissions: States must limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to comply with commitments, notably under the Paris Agreement, including the target to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Due Diligence and Prevention of Harm: States have a duty to prevent activities under their jurisdiction or control from causing significant transboundary harm to the climate, including emissions and environmental damage.
Human Rights Responsibilities: The Court emphasises that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of human rights. Consequently, states must act to protect human rights directly threatened by climate change impacts.
Non-Displacement of Human Rights by Climate Treaties: The ICJ rejected arguments that climate treaties like the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement override broader human rights obligations. Thus, human rights law remains fully applicable and complementary to international climate obligations.
International Responsibility and Remedies: States breaching these obligations may bear international legal responsibility, which can entail ceasing wrongful actions, providing guarantees of non-repetition, and fully reparating harm caused depending on circumstances.
Erga Omnes Nature of Obligations: The Court found that obligations to protect the climate system are owed to the international community as a whole (erga omnes). This allows any state to call out violations by others, raising the possibility of broader enforcement and collective responsibility.

Implications for Small, Climate-Vulnerable Nations

The ICJ's ruling provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations. This decision opens more legal options for these nations in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to address climate change.

The ICJ's ruling also means that parties to global human rights agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.

The United States' Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year, but the court's opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws. The court's ruling states that nations can be legally liable for climate harms even when damage comes from multiple causes, including the activities of private actors such as companies.

In Summary

The ICJ's advisory opinion establishes that major emitting countries have legal obligations under international law to take climate-related protective measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate impacts. These obligations are grounded in human rights law and environmental law, requiring states to exercise due diligence and cooperate to prevent significant harm to the climate system and protect human rights affected by climate change. Failure to meet these obligations exposes them to potential international legal claims for wrongful conduct related to climate change.

Climate change poses a significant threat to all life forms, a groundbreaking decision dictates, prompting nations that are slow to act to take notice