The climatic opinion of the International Court of Justice puts – once again – Belgium in the face of its responsibilities

After the publication of the CIJ’s opinion. Furthermore, Belgium remained strangely silent. Consequently, Almost no one asked himself: what does that mean for us. Nevertheless, a country already sentenced twice in the Climate (Klimaatzaak) case, but who still ignores these judgments? In addition, Where is the parliamentary committee which should examine the Belgian climate policy in the light of the climate judgment? Meanwhile, Where is the reaction of the Federal Prime Minister? Meanwhile, Where is the urgency to raise our climate ambition?

Binding obligations – Climatic opinion international court justice

The CIJ qualifies the climate crisis as “existential danger”. Additionally, Meanwhile, sweeps the comfortable misunderstanding according to which national governments could set climatic objectives as they please and without constraint. For example, Treaties. In addition, customary law and human rights climatic opinion international court justice force states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, protect vulnerable groups and organize international cooperation. These obligations are binding. Those who contravene there can be held responsible and must repair, compensate or provide a repair. The CIJ also confirmed that states are not only responsible for their own emissions. They must also regulate the behavior of private actors on their territory. Tolerating pollution can lead to legal responsibility.

The opinion of the International Court of Justice is both a moral reprimand and a normative compass. States can no longer take refuge behind what they consider “doable” or “affordable”. The Court explicitly affirms that the political freedom of governments is subject to their duty of diligence. based on the best scientific knowledge available. This means that a climate plan that does not aim for the highest ambition to achieve the objective of 1.5 ° C breaks international obligations. Final point.

A choice that has consequences

Meanwhile. Belgium continues to subsidize fossil fuels, several governments write climate plans that do not hold the road, and the programs of the greatest polluters remain intact. Belgium has however already been sentenced twice as part of the climate affair. The federal state. as well as the climatic opinion international court justice Flemish and Brussels regions, received the judicial order to reduce their emissions by at least 55 % by 2030 (compared to 1990). However, political leaders pretend that these trials had never taken place, and the media keep silent on this double conviction. The message is clear, however. Belgium has moral and legal responsibility. The climate affair had already confirmed it. and now the highest judicial body in the world says the same thing – with more words, more nuances, but the same message: not doing what is necessary is a choice, and this kind of choice has consequences.

The climate, diluted in the new European Union budget: “This raises several major concerns …”

The media, political leaders and citizens can seize this decision to finally advance Belgian climate policy. For ourselves, our well-being and our prosperity, of course-but also for Vanuatu and the young people of the Pacific. They climatic opinion international court justice have nothing to do with our empathy or our tenderness. Throughout the world, those who have contributed to the climate crisis pay the highest price. The most vulnerable people here and elsewhere, only need one thing: our action. A serious climate policy. based on evidence, which respects Belgian judgments and ensures that the greatest pollutors support the heaviest charges.

“The arc of the moral universe is long. but it always leans towards justice”said Martin Luther King-as long as we bow ourselves in the direction of responsibility.