States that violate their climatic obligations commit an “illicit” act and may be claimed reparations by the most affected countries, concludes the International Court of Justice on Wednesday in an unprecedented advisory opinion, intended to influence global case law.
The highest UN jurisdiction, based in The Hague, established unanimously in this opinion, initially requested by students on the Vanuatu archipelago, a legal interpretation of international law, of which legislators, lawyers and judges around the world can now seize to change the laws or to attack states for their climate inaction.
The degradation of the climate, caused by greenhouse gas emissions, is an “urgent and existential threat,” said Judge Yuji Iwasawa, president of the Court, during a two -hour speech.
The Court rejected the idea defended by large polluting countries that existing climatic treaties – and in particular the annual COP negotiation process – were sufficient.
States have “strict obligations to protect the climate system,” he argued. In accordance with small island countries, he confirmed that the climate should be “protected for present and future generations” – while large pollutors absolutely refused to legally recognize the rights of individuals not yet born.
The most substantial part of the opinion, and which will arouse the most resistance among rich countries, stems according to the court of these obligations: the compensations due to the countries ravaged by the climate.
“The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally illicit fact may include […] The full compensation for the damage suffered by the injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, ”said Yuji Iwasawa.
But the court adds that a direct and certain causal link must be established “between the illicit fact and the damage”, certainly difficult to establish before a jurisdiction, but “not impossible”, however, conclude the 15 judges of the CIJ.
This is the fifth unanimous opinion of the Court in 80 years, according to the UN.
Political declines, legal advances
“Climate change is not just an academic exercise … We live it on a daily basis,” said Fijien Vishal Prasad, 29, who launched the campaign in 2019 with other students from the South Pacific, in Vanuatu.
Many NGOs and activists impatiently awaited this opinion, frustrated by the inaction or the slowness of large polluting countries to reduce their combustion of oil, coal and gas.
A few dozen were present on Wednesday at the Palais de la Paix, siege of the CIJ, behind a banner printed before the hearing and who claims: “The courts have spoken – governments must act now”
The United Nations had responsible, by a vote of the general assembly, the ICJ to answer two questions.
Firstly: what obligations do states have under international law to protect the land against greenhouse gas emissions, mainly generated by the combustion of oil, coal and gas, for present and future generations?
Second, what are the legal consequences of these obligations for states whose emissions have caused environmental damage, in particular towards the vulnerable island states of low altitude?
The Court had to organize the biggest audiences in its history, with more than 100 nations and groups speaking, in December at the Palais de la Paix.
The climate battle is increasingly investing in courts, whether national or international, to force climate action of a magnitude that political negotiations cannot trigger-a fortiori at a period when Europe and the United States slow down or retreat on their commitments.
The annual COPs have certainly made it possible to influence the warming forecasts, but also very insufficient to hold the limit objective of 2 ° C, compared to the pre -industrial era, set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. The world is already at least 1.3 ° C of warming.
International law is built with such opinions, Andrew Raine, of the UN Environment Legal Department, told AFP. “They clarify the way in which international law applies to the climate crisis, which has repercussions on national courts, legislative processes and public debates. »»
