Latest News

The World Court will mark the future of climate litigation

The World Court will mark the future of climate litigation

On Wednesday, the highest court of the United Nations will issue an opinion that could determine the future course of climate action around the globe.

The 15 judges of The Hague's International Court of Justice have issued a non-binding advisory opinion. Legal experts claim that it has legal and political significance and future climate cases will be unable ignore the opinion.

Payam Akhavan is a professor of international law. She said, "The advisory opinion was probably the most significant in the history the court as it clarifies the international law obligations that are necessary to prevent catastrophic harm which would threaten the survival of humanity."

Akhavan, who represents low-lying island states, represented them in two weeks of hearings at the ICJ (also known as the World Court) last December.

Over a hundred countries and international organisations expressed their opinions on the two questions that the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges about.

The questions were: What are the obligations of countries under international law in protecting the climate against greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal implications for countries who harm the climate system.

The judges heard from wealthy countries in the Global North that they should base their decisions on existing climate treaties. This includes 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 that the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, which are climate-warming, should provide financial assistance.

The PARIS Agreement and the Upsurge in Litigation

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. said in its latest "Emissions Gap report" late last year that the current climate policies would result in a global warming of over 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. But his lawyers and environmentalists said that this case, which had dragged on over a decade, still represented a victory in 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 islands) said that its members should work together to combat climate change.

The campaigners believe that Wednesday's ruling should be a turning-point and, even if it is only advisory, the decision should determine that U.N. members have violated the international law that they signed up to enforce.

The court has confirmed that inaction on climate change, particularly by major emitters is not a failure of policy but a violation of international law, said Vishal Prasad of 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.

This opinion applies binding international law to which all countries have committed themselves. This opinion will be cited by national and regional courts as persuasive authority, and will guide judgments that have binding consequences in their legal systems," said Joie Chowdhury.

The court will begin reading its opinion at 3 pm (1300 GMT). (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen; editing by Barbara Lewis)

(source: Reuters)