World Court issues landmark opinion on States' Climate Obligations

On Wednesday, the United Nations highest court will issue a critical opinion about the legal obligations that states have in fighting climate change. This is expected to influence the future course of climate action around the world.

Before the decision, climate activists gathered in front of the International Court of Justice with placards that read: "Climate Justice Now!" End fossil fuels. "What do you want?" Climate justice! Climate justice: When do we want to see it? Now!"

The 15 judges at the ICJ are able to give a non-binding advisory opinion. Legal experts claim that it has legal and political significance and that future climate cases will be unable ignore the opinion.

Joie Chowdhury is a senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. She said that the ruling could be "one of the most important legal decisions of our time" because it deals with issues at the heart of climate justice. The U.N. General Assembly asked judges to answer two questions: What are countries' international obligations to protect climate against greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal implications for countries who harm the climate system.

The court will begin reading its opinion at 1300 GMT (3 p.m.). During two weeks of hearings at the ICJ in December last year, wealthy countries from the Global North told judges that they should base their decisions on existing climate treaties including the 2015 Paris Agreement which is largely non-binding.

Small island states and developing nations argued that stronger, and in some cases legally-binding, measures were needed to reduce emissions, and for the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, to provide financial assistance.

PARIS AGREEMENT

At the end of 2015 U.N. talks held in Paris, over 190 countries pledged to continue efforts to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The agreement failed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.N. stated in its latest "Emissions gap report" that the current climate policies would result in global warming exceeding 3 C (5.4 F), above pre-industrial levels, by 2100.

Climate-related litigation is intensifying as campaigners try to hold governments and companies accountable. According to figures released by the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London, nearly 3,000 lawsuits were filed in June across 60 countries.

The results so far have been mixed. In May, a German court threw out the case between a Peruvian farm and German energy giant RWE. However, his lawyers and environmentalists argued that this case, which had dragged on over a decade, still represented a win for climate cases and could inspire similar lawsuits. In a recent advisory opinion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over 20 Latin American countries and Caribbean) said that its members should work together to combat climate change.

Even if it is only advisory, the campaigners believe that Wednesday's opinion by the court should be a turning-point.

This ruling may also make it easier to hold other countries accountable for climate issues, such as pollution or emissions.

The court has confirmed that inaction on climate change, particularly by major emitters is not merely a failure of policy, but a violation of international law, said Vishal Prasad from Fiji, one of the students who lobbied Vanuatu, in the South Pacific Ocean, to take the case before the ICJ. Lawyers say that although it is technically possible to ignore a ruling of the ICJ, countries tend to be reluctant to do so.

Chowdhury stated that "this opinion is applying binding International Law, which countries already committed to," Chowdhury. (Ali Withers, Marta Fiorin and Farah Salahi contributed additional reporting from The Hague and Copenhagen; Stephanie van den Berg, Ingrid Melander and Barbara Lewis edited the article.)

(source: Reuters)