International Court of Justice (ICJ) Issues Clear Verdict: States' Responsibilities Regarding Climate Change Clearly Defined

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Issues Clear Verdict: States' Responsibilities Regarding Climate Change Clearly Defined

In a groundbreaking advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that States have a legally binding duty to protect the climate system from harmful human activities under international law. The ruling, initiated by the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), was based on extensive research into various international treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), among others [1][4].

The ICJ's findings are rooted in established climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recognises human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation as the primary causes of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations leading to widespread, rapid climate changes and severe environmental impacts [2][3].

The ICJ emphasised that States' duties under a broad array of international law, encompassing environmental treaties, human rights law, the UN Charter, and the Law of the Sea, include ensuring a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for current and future generations [1][4]. This duty arises because a healthy climate is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights [1].

For States causing significant harm to the climate system, the Court held that breach of these obligations incurs legal responsibility. States must cease wrongful conduct, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and may be required to make full reparations depending on circumstances [1]. The advisory opinion opens the door to potential legal claims and increased climate litigation against States and corporations failing their duties [2][3][4].

The ICJ's opinion also recognised the human right to a "clean, healthy and sustainable" environment as a prerequisite for enjoying foundational rights like life, health, food, water, and housing. It further rejected the theory of climate-treaty exceptionalism, affirming that climate treaties neither displace nor exhaust states' wider obligations under general international law and other treaty laws [1].

The ICJ confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are "unequivocally caused by human activities" and that the IPCC is the most authoritative source of scientific knowledge on the "causes, nature and consequences" of climate change. It also confirmed that states have legal duties, including a due-diligence obligation to regulate private actors, to prevent, mitigate, and remedy climate harm [1].

Under the Paris Agreement, parties incur binding obligations to provide financial assistance, technology transfer, and capacity-building to vulnerable states. These duties flow from treaty obligations (e.g., UNFCCC, Paris Agreement) and customary international law, including a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment [1].

The ICJ determined that states' discretion in formulating their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is not unlimited, and parties must exercise due diligence so that, collectively, their commitments can limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and stabilise greenhouse-gas concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system [1].

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/77/L.58, initiated by the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu and jointly sponsored by 132 developed and developing countries, posed two questions to the ICJ: (a) what are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system, and (b) what are the legal consequences for States causing significant harm to the climate system [5].

The ICJ's advisory opinion is considered a powerful tool in strategic legal proceedings before domestic and regional courts worldwide. It represents a historic affirmation of States' legal duties to address climate change and the consequences for failing to do so under international law [1][2][3][4]. As Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UNFCCC and a key architect of the Paris Agreement, stated, "This is the most far-reaching, comprehensive, and the most consequential legal Opinion we have ever had." [6]

[1] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/188/188-20210209-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/26/icj-rules-states-have-legal-duty-to-protect-climate [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/26/icj-rules-states-have-legal-duty-to-protect-climate [4] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/icj-rules-states-have-legal-duty-protect-climate-2021-02-26/ [5] https://undocs.org/A/77/L.58 [6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-26/icj-rules-that-states-have-legal-obligations-to-protect-climate

1. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that States have a legally binding duty under international law to protect the climate system from harmful human activities, such as those causing global warming through fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
2. The ICJ's ruling was based on extensive research into international treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
3. States causing significant harm to the climate system have a legal responsibility to cease wrongful conduct, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and may be required to make full reparations.
4. The ICJ's opinion recognizes the human right to a "clean, healthy, and sustainable" environment as a precondition for enjoying foundational rights like life, health, food, water, and housing.
5. The ICJ confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are "unequivocally caused by human activities" and that the IPCC is the most authoritative source of scientific knowledge on the "causes, nature, and consequences" of climate change.
6. Under the Paris Agreement, parties have binding obligations to provide financial assistance, technology transfer, and capacity-building to vulnerable states.
7. The ICJ's advisory opinion is considered a powerful tool in strategic legal proceedings, representing a historic affirmation of States' legal duties to address climate change and the consequences for failing to do so under international law.

Read also: