UN Court speaks out on climate change for the first time: emissions could be grounds for international lawsuits

The judges called global warming an “urgent and existential threat” and found that all states have an obligation to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations has issued an advisory opinion that states must protect people from the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change.

The New York Times reports that this is a significant moment for the global environmental movement and for the countries most at risk of harm.

It was the first time that the court, which is the highest judicial body of the United Nations, has ruled on climate change. The unanimous opinion stated that the failure of countries to take action to protect the climate system could constitute an “internationally wrongful act.”

The court also found that environmental protection is a “prerequisite” for the realization of human rights, and called state support for fossil fuel production a potential violation of these principles.

“The environment is the foundation of human life, upon which the health and well-being of both present and future generations depend,” said the court’s president, Yuji Iwasawa.

Although the International Court of Justice does not have a mechanism for countries to enforce such an advisory opinion, such as a declaration of legal principles, the opinions could nevertheless have a far-reaching impact on litigation in courts around the world, as well as on international negotiations on climate policy and finance.

The United Nations General Assembly requested the opinion after a years-long campaign by law students from Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. This led to a two-week hearing in December, at which more than 100 countries, organizations and experts addressed the court.

Powerful fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, argued before the court that the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which almost all countries agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions, was sufficient to address climate change.

Other countries argued that the court should take action, arguing that because the Paris Agreement lacks an enforcement mechanism, it will not be enough to stop the rapid pace of global warming that is causing rising temperatures, rising sea levels and increasingly dangerous storms.

The hearings also argued that countries that emit the most carbon dioxide, which heats the planet, should pay reparations to other countries suffering the effects of global warming.

The court’s ruling went further than many lawyers had expected. The judges found that all nations are obligated to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The court also left open the possibility that countries could sue each other for damages caused by historical emissions. “While climate change is caused by the collective emission of greenhouse gases, it is scientifically possible to determine the total contribution of each country to global emissions,” the court said.

The court said that a state’s failure to protect the climate system, including through production, consumption or subsidies for fossil fuels, could amount to “wrongful acts” and that governments could be held liable for damage caused by corporations.

Environmental groups welcomed the ruling, and Vanuatu will ask the General Assembly to adopt a resolution to implement the ruling.

The International Court of Justice said its December hearings had the highest turnout in its history. In its 80-year history, the court has issued 29 advisory opinions, and only four others have been unanimous.