The International Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday in a landmark climate case that countries are obligated to protect the climate. Industrialized countries must take the lead in this. If agreements in climate treaties are not complied with, countries must impose binding consequences on themselves according to the Court.
It is not a conviction, but an advisory opinion. This is a ruling in which the judges provide legal context to what has already been established in the field of climate, for example in treaties. Although it is not binding, experts say that the advice will weigh heavily in other climate cases in courts worldwide.
The presiding judge, the Japanese Yuji Iwasawa, emphasized “the urgent and existential threat that climate change poses.” According to the International Court of Justice, “the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights. Countries must therefore take measures to protect the climate system.”
The court points out that the consequences of climate change, such as floods and droughts, can have a major impact on human rights. For example, it affects health and access to water and food. “It can lead to people fleeing to other countries or no longer being able to return home.”
The judge said that national climate plans of countries should be as ambitious as possible. The national goals together must ensure that the global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. He emphasizes that states must work together to achieve the goals, because it is a common problem.
If countries fail to meet their obligations, that could pave the way for countries affected by climate change to hold them accountable. The affected countries could then, in specific cases, ask for compensation, but the judge immediately adds that a clear link must be demonstrated between the action of one country and the consequence on the other country.
Almost a hundred countries gave their opinion
It is the first time that the highest court of the UN has made a statement about climate. During the hearings in December, almost a hundred UN countries told in the courtroom how they look at the climate problem.
Those visions differed: some countries indicated that their economy is built on certain industries and that they cannot simply deviate from that. Other countries emphasized that they are already being hit hard by the effects of climate change. One wanted more climate legislation, the other less.
Since the hearings, fifteen international UN judges have considered all those statements. This advice has now come out of that.
Request for the case came from island in Pacific Ocean
Remarkable about this major climate case is that it started with an initiative of students from one of the smallest countries in the world: Vanuatu. The island in the Pacific Ocean is threatened by the sea level rise caused by climate change.
Vanuatu started in 2019 on behalf of the students and other island states with lobbying at the General Assembly of the UN. In 2023, the request for a case was officially accepted and it ended up at the International Court of Justice.
“With a case we don’t want to blame anyone, but rather create an opportunity for countries to listen to each other,” said initiator Cynthia Honiuhi from Vanuatu earlier in an interview with NU.nl.
In advance, experts already said that the ruling would be historic anyway, but according to professor of international environmental law Jonathan Verschuuren (Tilburg University), it goes even further than he had expected. One of the things that struck him is that the judge said that withdrawing from a treaty does not relieve you of its obligations. That was “very clearly” aimed at the United States, which has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.