Top United Nations said that countries can continue on climate change

A historic decision by a United Nations court has opened the way to countries to continue each other on climate change, including the historic emissions of warming gases from the planet.

But the judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in the Netherlands, said on Wednesday that the damage that had caused part of climate change could be difficult.

The decision is non -binding, but legal experts say that it could have large -scale consequences.

He will be considered a victory for countries very vulnerable to climate change, which came to court after being frustrated by the lack of global progress in solving the problem.

The unprecedented affair at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was an original idea of an group of young law students from the Pacific islands in the front line of climate change, which had the idea in 2019.

One of these students, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga, was in The Hague to hear the decision.

“I am lost for words. It is so exciting. There is a ton of emotions that rush through us. It is a victory that we proudly put in our communities in our communities,” he told BBC News.

“Tonight, I will sleep more easily. The CIJ recognized what we have experienced – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, of the Pacific Vanuatu island, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather conditions worldwide.

“This is a victory not only for us, but so that each front line community is fighting.”

The CIJ is considered the highest courtyard in the world and has global jurisdiction. Lawyers told BBC News that opinion could be used next week, including in national courts outside the CIJ.

Activists and climate lawyers hope that the historical decision will now open the way to the remuneration of countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.

Many poorer countries had supported the case by frustration, saying that the developed nations do not hold the existing promises to tackle the growing problem.

But developed countries, including the United Kingdom, argued that existing climatic agreements, including the historic agreement of the 2015 Paris, are sufficient and that no other legal obligation should be imposed.

On Wednesday, the court rejected this argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious plans possible to combat climate change, this would constitute a violation of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries that are not registered with the Paris Agreement – or wish to leave, like the United States – are always required to protect the environment, including the climate system.

The Court’s opinion is an opinion, but previous CIJ decisions were implemented by governments, especially when the United Kingdom agreed to hand over the Chagos islands to Mauritius last year.

“The decision is a legal moment in the watershed,” said Joy Chowdhury, main lawyer for the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).

“With the historical decision making authority today, the International Court of Justice has broken with business as usual and has presented a historical assertion: those who suffer from the impacts of climate devastation have the right to remedy climate damage, including by compensation,” she added.

A spokesperson for the Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom said that he “took time” to examine the opinion before commenting in detail, but added:

“The fight against climate change is and will remain an urgent priority in the United Kingdom and global. Our position remains that this is better achieved thanks to an international commitment to the existing Treaties and Mechanisms of the UN.”

The Court judged that developing countries had the right to request damages for the impacts of climate change such as buildings and destroyed infrastructure.

He added that when it is not possible to restore part of a country, his government may want to request compensation.

This could be for a specific extreme meteorological event if it could be proven that climate change caused it, but the judge said it should be determined on a case -by -case basis.

“This is a huge victory for vulnerable climatic states. It is a huge victory for Vanuatu, who led this case and will change the face of climate plea,” lawyer Jennifer Robinson told Doughty Street Chambers, who represented Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands.

It is not clear how much an individual country may have to pay for damages if a complaint has succeeded.

But the previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019, there were 2.8 billions of dollars in loss of climate change – or 16 million dollars per hour.

During the evidence in December, the court heard dozens of Pacific islands which were moved following the increase in sea level, caused by climate change.

The Marshall Islands have stressed that the costs of their island adapting to climate change are $ 9 billion.

“This represents $ 9 billion that the Marshall Islands did not. Climate change is a problem they have not caused, but they are forced to consider moving their capital,” said Robinson.

In addition to compensation, the court also judged that governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their country.

He specifically indicated that subsidy of the fossil fuel industry or the approval of new petroleum and gas licenses may be in violation of the obligations of a country.

Developing countries already explore new cases for the remuneration of historical contributions to climate change against the richer and emitting issues citing the opinion of the CIJ, according to the lawyers to which the BBC spoke.

If a country wants to bring a case to the CIJ to make a decision on remuneration, it can only do it against the countries which have agreed with its jurisdiction, which includes the tastes of the United Kingdom, but not from the United States or China.

But a case can be brought to any court in the world, whether at home or internationally, citing the opinion of the CIJ, explained Joy Chowdhury in Ciel.

Thus, a country can choose to bring its case not to the CIJ but a court where these countries are linked, for example, the federal courts in the United States.

But the question remains whether CIJ’s opinion will be respected.

“”[The ICJ] is an institution subject to geopolitics – and it is based on states adhering to its judgments, it has no police force, “said Harj Narulla, climate lawyer at Doughty Street Chambers, who also represented the Solomon Islands.

Asked about the decision, a White House spokesperson told BBC News:

“As always, President Trump and the whole administration are determined to put America first and prioritize the interests of everyday Americans.”