The highest court in the world declared Wednesday that states are bound by international law to address climate change and warned that not doing so could open the door to repairs.
In a historical ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICI) said that climate change was an “urgent and existential threat” and the states had the legal duty to avoid damage due to their pollution of planet warming.
The countries that violated their climatic obligations were committing an “illicit act,” the court said in his advisory opinion, which is not legally binding, but has a significant moral, political and legal weight.
“The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally illicit act may include … Complete repairs to the injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,” said ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa, on behalf of the panel of 15 judges.
This would be a case by case in which a “sufficient causal link had been demonstrated” between the unjustified act and the injury, “the court added.
Historically, rich and industrialized countries have been responsible for most broadcasts. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the initiative to address the problem.
Activists and countries in the first climatic line praised a moment of milestone in the struggle for the responsibility of the great pollutants most responsible for global warming.
Ralph Regenvanu, the Minister of Climate Change of Vanuatu, the small nation of the Pacific Island that led the case in The Hague, was jubilant.
Talking with AFP Outside the court, Regenvanu said it was “a very strong opinion at the end” and better than expected.
“We can use these arguments when we talk to our partners, some of the high -sender’s states. We can say that it has the legal obligation to help us,” he said.
“This helps us in our arguments. It will give us much more influence … in all negotiations.”
Catalyst for change
This was the greatest case in the history of ICJ, and seen as the most consistent in a recent series of historical climatic failures.
The United Nations had commissioned the 15 judges in the CIJ, a UN court in the beef that judges disputes between the nations, to answer two fundamental questions.
First: What should States do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions for the future?
Second: What are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental damage, especially to vulnerable and low island states?
In a detailed summary of the opinion, Iwasawa said the weather “must be protected for present and future generations.”
The adverse effect of a heating planet “can significantly affect the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life,” he added.
Legal and climatic experts said that opinion, although it was not legally binding, could have long -range consequences for national courts, legislation and public debate.
“The clear and detailed articulation of the State’s state obligations will be a catalyst for accelerated climate action and the unprecedented responsibility,” said David Boyd, former UN special rec it on human rights and the environment. AFP.
Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the ruling forced all nations by international law to avoid damage due to the planet’s soothing greenhouse gas emissions.
The court was “pointing out the direction for everyone and making it clear that each nation is legally obliged to resolve the climatic crisis,” he said AFP.
Classroom to court
The courts have become a key battlefield for climatic action as frustration has grown over the slow progress towards the braking of the heating pollution of planets of fossil fuels.
The Paris Agreement, crossed the UN Convention on Climate Change (CMNUCC), has recovered a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating.
The trip to The Hague began six years ago with students from the Pacific Region imprudent climate fed up with the lack of responsibility for the damage that its homelands affects.
The fight faced the main rich economies against the smallest and less developed states, which are more at the mercy of a heating planet.
More than 100 nations and groups made presentations in The Hague, many of the Pacific who gave passionate appeals in the colorful traditional clothing.
“It is such a perfect ending for a campaign that began in a classroom,” said Vishal Prasad, director of the campaign led by students who started the case.
“Now we have a very, very strong tool to hold power responsible, and we must do it now. The ICJ has given everything possible,” he said AFP In The Hague.
John Kerry, former United States special envoy for climate change, said AFP“You should not take the seal of international law to motivate countries to do what is already deeply in their economic interests.
“We should not need another reason to act and accelerate the action.”
The ruling could also facilitate that states consider other states to account for climatic problems such as pollution or emissions.
“The court can affirm that climatic inaction, especially because of the main issuing issues, is not simply a political failure but a violation of international law,” said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students who pressed the Vanuatu government in the South Pacific Ocean to take the case to the ICJ.
Although theoretically it is possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say that countries are usually reluctant to do so.
“This opinion is applying binding international law, with which countries have already committed,” said Chowdhury.
