World Court: Nations Legally Accountable for Climate Damage

Landmark Ruling Affirms States’ Duty to Curb Emissions

The United Nations’ top court has declared that nations can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. This pivotal decision, eagerly awaited by Pacific nations grappling with climate change impacts, signals a significant shift in global climate accountability.

Climate Change Declared “Existential Threat”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) President, Yuji Iwasawa, delivered the non-binding but influential opinion, characterizing climate change as an “urgent and existential threat” unequivocally caused by human actions. Its widespread consequences, he noted, transcend national borders.

This historic ruling is the culmination of six years of advocacy, beginning with Pacific university students in 2019. Frustrated by perceived inaction on the climate crisis, they sought more robust international mechanisms. Their initiative gained momentum when Vanuatu’s government successfully petitioned the UN General Assembly to seek the court’s guidance.

Court Affirms Broad Legal Obligations

The court was asked to clarify states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate and environment, and the legal ramifications for harmful acts or omissions. The judges examined extensive written submissions and heard testimony from over a hundred nations and organizations.

In a summary lasting nearly two hours, Iwasawa affirmed that states have clear duties under international law to reduce emissions. He emphasized that environmental and human rights obligations enshrined in international law are indeed applicable to climate change. “The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights,” he stated, linking rising sea levels, desertification, and extreme weather events to significant impairments of fundamental rights, including the right to life.

The court’s findings extend beyond existing climate treaties, encompassing human rights law, environmental regulations, and the principle of preventing cross-border harm. Major emitters, including the United States and China, had previously argued that accords like the Paris Agreement were sufficient.

Crucially for vulnerable nations, the court addressed the potential loss of statehood due to rising sea levels, asserting that “Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

Opening Floodgates for Climate Litigation

While the ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding, advocates highlight its substantial legal and political weight. This ruling could empower individuals and groups to pursue legal action against their own governments for non-compliance and enable states to hold each other accountable. It also sets a powerful precedent for legislators and judges addressing the climate crisis, bolstering the influence of smaller nations in international climate negotiations.

Outside the court, dozens of climate activists gathered. Among them was Siaosi Vaikune, a Tongan national who was part of the initial student group. “Everyone has been waiting for this moment,” he remarked. “It’s been six years of campaigning.” He added, “Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again. And this is another step towards that justice.”

The ICJ’s stance aligns with growing scientific consensus, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2023 Synthesis Report, which states that “Human activities are unequivocally causing climate change.” The court’s ruling provides a critical legal framework for addressing this global challenge.