If nations fail to uphold their “duty” to combat climate change, they will be in violation of international law.
The court also found nations can be required to compensate other countries for climate-related damages caused by their pollution.
The case
The ICJ – also known as the World Court – is the United Nations' highest judicial body. Its role is to settle legal disputes between states. The ICJ’s rulings are typically binding, but the enforcement of orders has proven difficult.
This case was initiated in 2019 by a group of law students in the Pacific Islands. Vanuatu, a country in the Pacific Islands directly impacted by climate change, lobbied the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to request the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the case in 2023.
The decision
On Thursday morning (AEST), the court ruled that nations must work to stop to prevent “significant harm to the environment”
This means individual countries must “adapt” their policies to mitigate the global impacts of climate change.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa led the group of 15 judges who delivered the verdict.
Iwasawa said: “The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.”
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
The ruling also said countries must regulate the emissions produced by privately owned companies.
While the court’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, countries who violate this ruling will be breaching international law.
If nations are proven to have failed to uphold their obligations, they could be forced to provide reparation to countries they have harmed.
For example, if Australia is found to have failed to take action on climate change, it may need to provide “restitution, compensation and satisfaction” to a country it harmed.
Reactions
Following the ruling, Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu told CNN: “Action on climate change by [countries] is a legal obligation. That removes a lot of the excuses we’re hearing from high-emitting states … about whether they need to take action or whether it is a voluntary commitment.”
One of the law students involved, Vishal Prasad, told Reuters: “This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference.”
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “The Court’s ruling makes it clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production.”
