Climate change poses a significant threat to all life forms and penalizes nations that haven't made sufficient progress in addressing this issue
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a groundbreaking advisory opinion on climate change, setting a new baseline for what countries need to do to address the issue and opening up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.
The ruling, applicable to all regions including Asia Pacific, Canada, Global, United States, and other affected areas, emphasizes the legal obligations of high-emitting countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate system. This is to safeguard human rights and the environment for current and future generations.
Key aspects of the ruling include:
- Binding Obligations: The obligations are rooted in international treaties such as the Paris Agreement, customary international law, and human rights instruments.
- Due Diligence: States must exercise due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system, including regulating emissions from fossil fuels and other sources and cooperating internationally.
- Internationally Wrongful Act: Failure to reduce emissions or regulate contributing activities constitutes an internationally wrongful act, triggering legal consequences under the law of state responsibility.
- Potential Claims: Affected states and individuals have potential claims to cessation of harmful acts, assurances against future breaches, and reparations, subject to establishing causal links under international law.
- Human Rights Integral to Climate Obligations: The ICJ explicitly recognized that protecting human rights such as the right to a clean and sustainable environment is integral to climate obligations.
- Customary International Law: States cannot evade obligations simply by withdrawing from treaties because these duties form part of customary international law, binding even non-signatories or withdrawing states.
This landmark opinion signals a shift from climate commitments as mere political goals to legal duties enforceable by international law. It reinforces the accountability of high-emitting states for their role in climate change and its human rights and environmental consequences.
The ruling is particularly beneficial for small, climate-vulnerable nations like those in the Alliance of Small Island States in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to address climate change. Citizens could also seek to hold governments accountable for a failure to safeguard their human rights due to climate change.
Notably, the United States, which pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year, is still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound. The ICJ's ruling allows legal proceedings to be launched against nations causing harm due to a failure to fulfill international climate obligations, potentially leading to compensation or other remedies.
The ICJ's ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement. The ruling also opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations.
In conclusion, the ICJ's advisory opinion has significant implications for climate action globally. It establishes that high-emitting countries have binding legal obligations under international law to curb greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate system to safeguard human rights and the environment for current and future generations.
- The ICJ's ruling sets a new legal standard for high-emitting countries to address climate change, as they now have binding obligations under international law to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
- These obligations stem from international treaties like the Paris Agreement, customary international law, and human rights instruments, making them enforceable by international law.
- The ruling also emphasizes that states must exercise due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system, including regulating emissions from fossil fuels and other sources, and cooperating internationally.
- Citizens of countries, such as the United States, which have withdrawn from important climate treaties, can still hold their governments accountable for climate harms under other international laws.
- As a result, the ICJ's advisory opinion has significant implications for climate action globally, particularly for small, climate-vulnerable nations, as they now have new avenues for seeking reparations from high-emitting countries.
