In a “historic” opinion, the International Court of Justice opens the way to climatic “repairs”

States that violate their climatic obligations commit an act “illicit” And could be claimed reparations by the most affected countries, concludes the International Court of Justice on Wednesday in an unprecedented and qualified advisory notice as“historical” By number of experts, because it is 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 a “Urgent and existential threat”said judge Yuji Iwasawa, president of the court, during a two -hour speech. “This is a concern of planetary magnitude which threatens all forms of life … The Court gives this opinion with the hope that its conclusions will allow the right to inspire and guide social and political action to resolve the current climate crisis”he added.

Pass advertising

The Court rejected the idea defended by large countries emitting greenhouse gases 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 the major polluting countries absolutely refused to legally recognize the rights of individuals not yet born.

Read too
Tensions, staging … in Bakou, behind the scenes of a “difficult” and “bizarre” cop29

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 states injured in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction ”said Yuji Iwasawa. However, 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 to AFP the student Fijien Vishal Prasad, 29, who launched the campaign in 2019 with other students from the South Pacific University in Vanuatu. Many NGOs and activists were impatiently awaiting this opinion, frustrated by the inaction or the slowness of countries to reduce their combustion of oil, coal and gas. A few dozen were present on Wednesday at the Palais de la Paix, the CIJ seat, behind a banner printed before the hearing and that proclaims: “The courts have spoken – governments must act now.”

The United Nations had responsible, by a vote of the General Assembly, the CIJ 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 to 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.

Pass advertising

This opinion is certainly not binding but international law is built with such opinions, explained to AFP Andrew Raine, of the Legal Department of the UN Environment: “They clarify the way in which international law applies to the climate crisis, which has repercussions on national courts, legislative processes and public debates.” “It’s a major decision”, Considers Johan Rockström, director of one of the most recognized European institutes on the climate, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. According to him, each country can “To be held responsible” before the courts, even if it is not signatory to the Treaties of the United Nations “.

For Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former United Nations Human Rights, “Today, the situation is overturned. The highest courtyard in the world provides us with a new powerful tool to protect populations against the devastating effects of the climate crisis and to do justice to the damage already caused by their emissions. ” This recognition therefore opens the door to new legal claims.