The nations must act on climate change or could be held responsible, the best rules of the United Nations Court: NPR

The main United Nations Court has ruled that nations are forced to limit climate change, and countries that do not act could be held legally responsible for climate damages elsewhere.

The decision is a victory for many small countries vulnerable to the climatic impacts that have been pressure for the question to be heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

This is the first major decision of the Court on climate change, but the decision is only advisory, which means that countries are not legally linked by it. However, legal experts say that it could be a boost for other proceedings in terms of modification of current climate change in national courts around the world.

“It’s really revolutionary,” said Maria Antonia Tigre, Director of World Change Disputes on Climate Change at Columbia Law School. “I think it will create this new wave of climate disputes.”

The case was defended by the island nation of the southern Pacific of Vanuatu, which was among the most noisy votes calling for stronger international climate action, alongside other island nations. Lower countries face disastrous risks of increasing sea level and more intense cyclones.

In legal proceedings in December, Vanuatu and other nations argued that countries have the obligation to act on climate change under international laws protecting the environment and human rights. In a decision on Wednesday, the CIJ accepted.

“In order to guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights, states must take measures to protect the climate system and other parties of the environment,” said Judge Yuji Iwasawa.

The court also noted that if the countries did not limit their trapping emissions for fossil fuels, they could be on the verge of paying damage linked to climate change in other countries. These types of payments were a point of contention between major issuers and low -income counties during annual negotiations on climate change.

The United States generally does not consider the decisions of the ICJ as binding. Earlier this year, President Trump also withdrew the United States from the main international climate agreement, the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

However, small countries say they hope that the CIJ’s decision will be a turning point in international climate negotiations.

“Today, this was a historic step for climate action,” said Vanuatu climate minister Ralph Regenvanu. “It is a very important course correction in this extremely important period.”

Island nations are pushing for climate change decision

For years, low countries around the world have argued that climate change is an existential threat. The sea level has already increased by around 8 inches since the industrial revolution, and the pace is accelerating. Vanuatu plans to move entire villages from the coast. Cyclones have wreaked havoc on the South Pacific country and become more intense as the climate warms up.

With a population of around 300,000 inhabitants, the Vanuatu produced a relatively lower share of global emissions from fossil fuels on fire, which trap the heat and warm the planet. The majority of emissions come from larger and richer countries such as the United States, the European Union and China.

But Vanuatu officials argue that this brings the weight of the problem.

“We are on the front line of a crisis that we have not created, a crisis that threatens our very existence,” said Regenvanu before the ICJ last December.

Vanuatu has led a coalition of countries to ask the CIJ to reign over climate change, stimulated by a group of students from the Pacific islands. The court, based in The Hague, regulates international law and disputes between countries. Nearly 100 countries have submitted testimonies, making it the greatest case that the court heard.

Are countries obliged to act on climate change?

The court asked two questions: are countries forced to act on climate change, and what are the legal consequences if they cause damage?

During hearings, the United States argued that negotiations through international agreements such as the Paris climate agreement is the best way to treat climate change.

“Cooperation efforts through this regime give the best hope of protecting the climate system for the benefit of current and future generations,” said Margaret Taylor, who represented the United States Department of State in the legal proceedings of the Biden administration.

In its decision on Wednesday, the CIJ noted that countries are required to limit greenhouse gas emissions under international law. This includes taking measurements Like the limitation of the use and production of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas – and even government subsidies for these industries. He also found that states can be held responsible for specific damage caused by climate change. This is made possible by the progress of climate science which contributes to determining the amount of climate change contributes to specific disasters.

At the same time, the ICJ has recognized that the advisory decision can have a minimum impact.

“International law … has an important but ultimately limited role in solving this problem,” said judgment. “A complete solution to this intimidating and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all areas of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other.”

Potential international impacts

The case could influence hundreds of other prosecution for climate change around the world, adding evidence of the complainants who seek to encourage governments to act. Business has been deposited in American and European countries like the Netherlands, where a court judged that the Dutch state should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

“This is really the biggest case we have seen in climate disputes, the status and weight of the court can really influence a large part of these cases,” said Tiger.

The CIJ’s decision could also be cited during international climate negotiations of COP30 this fall in Brazil. There, the small nations like Vanuatu will continue to plead in the event of compensation for the richer countries for the damages of climate change, known as the payment of “losses and damage”.

Climate activists, such as Vishal Prasad of Pacific Islands fighting climate change, say that the decision provides new impetus for their movement.

“I think it sends a strong message for all of us and to young people around the world,” explains Prasad. “There is still hope and there is a chance and there is a reason for us to continue to fight.”