The United Nations Supreme Court said all countries must take action against climate change. This is the key point.
The Hague, Netherlands (AP) – The top UN court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, with its 15 black-driving judges involved for the first time what the president calls “the existence of planetary things that endanger all forms of life and the health of our planet”.
The consensus non-binding opinion of the International Court of Justice (more than 500 pages) was immediately called by activists the turning point of international climate law.
After years of lobbying by island countries and fearing that they will disappear with the rise of sea water, the UN General Assembly in 2023 asked the court to answer two questions: What are the responsibilities for protecting the climate and the environment from greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans under international law? What are the legal consequences when government actions or lack of actions seriously damage the climate and the environment?
Here are some of the key points for comments Wednesday.
A healthy planet is a basic human right
In a simple statement that could have far-reaching legal implications, the court said that everyone is entitled to a habitable planet.
“The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights,” Yuji Iwasawa, chairman of the court, said in a two-hour hearing.
A habitable planet is a human right and part of international customary law, which means every country must protect it, not just the state that has signed climate treaties and other agreements.
Violation of international law
The court said failure to address climate change could violate international law.
This is important because it applies to all countries and paves the way for legal proceedings, including returning to states where the International Court of Justice is responsible; domestic litigation; and investment agreements that must comply with international law.
“Through today’s authoritative historical rulings, the International Court of Justice has a historic affirmation with the customary commercial rulings: those who suffer from the impact of climate destruction have the right to remedy and adequate compensation,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney for the International Centre for Environmental Law.
Return time?
The court ruled that certain countries or individuals suffering from the effects of climate change may be eligible for compensation.
For climate damage related to greenhouse gas emissions, “restoring the original state can take the form of rebuilding damaged or damaged infrastructure, restoring ecosystems and biodiversity,” the court said.
If not, economic compensation can be assessed, although the judge acknowledged that “it may be difficult to calculate because there is usually a certain degree of uncertainty in the exact extent of the damage caused.”
The radicals called this part of the decision a historical turning point in seeking justice.
“The decision of the International Court of Justice brings us closer to a world where legal responsibilities are no longer able to turn a blind eye to the government. It affirms the simple truth of climate justice: those who facilitate this crisis deserve protection, compensation and future.”
Climate refugees
Although the court’s opinion is far-reaching, no one expects it to immediately address the problems posed by climate change.
The judge noted that people may be forced to flee their homes to escape the dangers of climate change and that the state has to reject climate refugees in the event of endangered extinction. They say that if a country disappears into rising ocean levels, that country no longer exists.
For Pacific island countries that promote opinions, the threat is real. Since 1993, sea levels around the Vanuatu coast have increased by about 6 mm (.24 inches) each year, which is much faster than the global average – in some regions, tectonic activity has doubled.
