In a landmark decision issued on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that failure to comply with mitigation commitments is an internationally wrongful act and gives rise to legal responsibility for states. This responsibility can be invoked even by states that have not suffered direct harm, thus opening the door to climate litigation between states.
In this advisory opinion, the ICJ makes it clear that all States are obliged, under international law, to protect the global climate system and notes that nations harmed by climate change could be entitled to compensation for the damages suffered.
The international court also declared in its ruling that climate change is a “universal existential risk”, unequivocally caused by human activity and that member states have a “duty” to prevent it.
In April 2023, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to rule on what the state obligations are to guarantee the protection of the climate system against human-generated emissions and what the legal consequences of those obligations are.
The advisory opinion, initiated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries, was issued following public hearings in which 96 states and 11 international organizations submitted oral statements. This represents the highest level of participation in a procedure in the history of the body.
More information here and here .
In a landmark decision issued on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that failure to comply with mitigation commitments is an internationally wrongful act and gives rise to legal responsibility for states. This responsibility can be invoked even by states that have not suffered direct harm, thus opening the door to climate litigation between states.
In this advisory opinion, the ICJ makes it clear that all States are obliged, under international law, to protect the global climate system and notes that nations harmed by climate change could be entitled to compensation for the damages suffered.
The international court also declared in its ruling that climate change is a “universal existential risk”, unequivocally caused by human activity and that member states have a “duty” to prevent it.
In April 2023, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to rule on what the state obligations are to guarantee the protection of the climate system against human-generated emissions and what the legal consequences of those obligations are.
The advisory opinion, initiated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries, was issued following public hearings in which 96 states and 11 international organizations submitted oral statements. This represents the highest level of participation in a procedure in the history of the body.
More information here and here .