ICJ opinion says states are legally obligated to tackle climate change

LeMonde

4 days ago

The world's highest court declared, on Wednesday, July 23, that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and that failing to do so was a "wrongful act" that could open the door to reparations. The decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN court in the Hague that adjudicates disputes between nations, was closely watched by legal experts, who said the judges' opinion could mark a turning point for environmental justice and climate litigation around the world. ICJ advisory opinions are not binding but carry considerable moral and legal weight, and Wednesday's decision was seen as the most consequential in a recent string of landmark climate rulings.
In handing down the decision, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat" and states breaching their obligations to address the crisis were committing "an internationally wrongful act."
"The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include (...) full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction," the court said. This would be on a case-by-case basis where a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had been shown "between the wrongful act and the injury," it added.
It also said that the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effects of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life."
Courts as key battlegrounds for climate action
The United Nations had tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions "for present and future generations"? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states?
The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. As a result, courts have become key battlegrounds for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. Ahead of the ICJ's decision, experts said the advisory opinion could have ripple effects across national courts, legal processes, and public debate.
More than 100 nations and groups gave submissions at a mammoth hearing in December in the Great Hall of Justice in the Hague. Many hailed from distant Pacific Island nations, and delivered impassioned appeals in the sober arena dressed in colourful traditional attire.
Experts said it would take time to go over the full advisory opinion, which is the biggest case ever handled by the ICJ. To reach its decision, ICJ judges pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world.
Wealthy states vs. smaller ones
The debate pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states, which are most at the mercy of a warming planet.
Big polluters, including the United States and India, argued that legal provisions under the UNFCCC were sufficient, and that a re-examination of state responsibility in relation to climate action was not necessary.
New
Yet the smaller states refuted this, saying the UN framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader. These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters, a highly sensitive issue in global climate negotiations.
They also demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs.
'No more delay'
Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like "No more delay, climate justice today."
The journey to the world's highest court was six years in the making, spearheaded by students from the climate-imperilled Pacific region, and championed by the tiny island nation of Vanuatu.
Ahead of the ruling, Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanu, said the advisory opinion could be a "game-changer." "It's a landmark milestone for climate action," said Regenvanu on the steps outside the court in the Hague. "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time." "We've been going through this for 30 years (...) It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have," he added, speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP).