The highest court in the world has stated that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and that it is not to do this is an “unlawful act” that could open the door to repairs.
The historical advice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is seen as a possible turning point in international climate legislation.
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … Can be an international unlawful act,” said President Yuji Iwasawa during the hearing.
“The legal consequences arising from committing an international unlawful act can include … complete reparations for wounded states in the form of a refund, compensation and satisfaction.”
The court added that a “sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus” had to be shown “between the unlawful act and the injury”.
In his non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, the ICJ said that a “clean, healthy and stable environment” is a human right.
The enrichment of a sustainable environment such as a human right opens the prospect of further legal action, including states that return to the ICJ to keep each other responsible, as well as domestic lawsuits and legal instruments, including investment agreements.
The case was inspired by a group of law students from Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 other countries.
Ralph Regenvanu, center, Vanuatu helped the case to the international court in Leiden. ((AP Photo: Peter Dejong))
Vanuatu’s special envoy about climate change, Ralph Rainvanu, greeted the court’s decision as a “historical milestone”.
“It is a very important course correction in this critically important time,” said Mr. Regenvanu.
“Even while the expansion of fossil fuels continues under the influence of the US, along with the loss of climate financing and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition after the withdrawal of the US from the Parisian Agreement, large polluters, past and present, cannot continue to act with punishment and the development of developing resources for a company group.”
He said that Vanuatu would now take the statement to the UN general meeting to “pursue a resolution that will support the implementation of this decision”.
Activists demonstrated outside the court on the day the advice was read.
((AP Photo: Peter Dejong))
Proponents immediately cheered that the court had provided the advice.
“The decision of the ICJ brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer make an eye for their legal responsibilities,” said Pacific Islands students who fight against climate change, Vishal Prasad.
“It confirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who have done the least to feed this crisis, earn protection, repairs and a future.“
All members of the United Nations are a party to the court, including major emitters such as the United States and China.
Two questions asked ICJ judges
The 15 judges at the United Nations Court were given the task of answering two questions:
- First: what should states do under international law to protect the environment against greenhouse gas emissions “for current and future generations”?
- Secondly: what are the consequences for states whose emissions for environmental damage have caused, especially for vulnerable low -lying island states?
ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said that climate change was an “urgent and existential threat”, adding the climate “should be protected for current and future generations” and the adverse effect of a warming planet “can significantly affect the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life”.
The case was the largest that the ICJ had dealt with, with judges who flowed over tens of thousands of pages with entries from countries and organizations around the world, including Australia.
Outside the court in The Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters with slogans such as “no more delay, climate justice today”.
They looked at a procedure on a large screen, closed and cheer occasionally during the two -hour hearing.
When it was over, others from the courtroom came out laughing and hugging.
Courts have become an important battlefield for climate action, because frustration has grown over slow progress in the direction of curbing the planet -warming pollution by fossil fuels.
The Paris agreement, beaten by the UN framework treaty for climate change (UNFCCC), has collected a global response to the crisis, but not with the speed needed to protect the world against dangerous overheating.
More than 100 countries and groups gave in December during a gigantic hearing in the Great Hall of Justice in The Hague.
Many came from distant Pacific Island Nations and brought passionate calls to the sober arena while they are dressed in colorful traditional clothing.
The courtroom was full at the international court of Justice in The Hague for the last day of the case. ((Un Photo/ICJ/Frank van Beek))
The debate imposed great rich economies against the smaller, less developed states that are most highlighted to the grace of a warm -up planet.
Large pollutants, including the United States and India, argued that legal provisions under the UNFCCC were sufficient and that a re -examination of the responsibility of the State with regard to climate action was not necessary.
But smaller states refuted this and said that the UN framework was insufficient to reduce the devastating effects of climate change and that the opinion of the ICJ should be wider.
These states also insisted on the ICJ to impose reparations to historical polluters, a very sensitive issue in global climate negotiations.
They also demanded an obligation and timeline to throw fossil fuels, monetary compensation when needed, and recognition of mistakes from the past.
ABC/wires
#Countries #tackle #risk #climate #change #Top #Court