Efforts to fight climate change “aren’t aspirational ideas, as some would have it. The court has just confirmed they are binding duties,” said Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister of Vanuatu. “Today’s ruling, I’m sure, will also inspire new cases where victims around the world, in a legal sense, realize that they can claim their rights and seek accountability.”
Trump-proofing the climate fight
Vanuatu’s request for legal guidance had two parts: First, it asked the ICJ to clarify what countries’ obligations are under international law to reduce emissions; and second, what the legal consequences are for countries whose actions — or inaction — harms the climate.
The judges noted that existing international climate treaties, such as the Paris Agreement and the overarching United Nations convention, set out “binding obligations” on countries to protect the planet’s climate system from greenhouse gas emissions that drive up the global temperature.
Those obligations include adopting measures to reduce emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change, with developed countries — responsible for the bulk of historical greenhouse gas pollution — taking a leading role in these efforts.
But similar obligations exist in unwritten customary law, the judges insisted.
“States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment,” the opinion reads.
