The UN Supreme Court issued a milestone counseling opinion on climate change, and for the first time its 15 judges formally dealt with what the President of the Court called “the existential threat of global proportions, which threatens the life and health of the planet”.
In a unanimous and non -binding opinion, extending to 500 pages of the International Court outlined his attitude and drew immediate praise from climate activists who welcomed him as the main milestone in the development of the International Climate Act.
Also read: Indian cities on climate crossroads, urgent action, says the World Bank
After years of lobbying by island nations, which fear that they could disappear under growing sea waters, he asked the UN General Assembly in 2023 to answer two questions: What are the countries under international law to protect the climate and the environment from greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments when their actions or lack of negotiations significantly damaged the climate and the environment?
Here are some of the key points of the delivered opinion:
“Nations must solve fossil fuel”
ICJ explained that states are responsible for various activities that damage the climate, and explicitly noted that “states must deal with fossil fuel”.
The court stressed that governments must deal with the use of fossil fuels. Specifically, according to the Guardian report, the country’s inability to act against greenhouse gas emissions, including allowing the production and consumption of fossil fuels.
“A healthy planet is a fundamental human right”
In a direct statement that could have deep legal consequences, the court stated that everyone was entitled to a habitable planet.
Read also: Climate change is now a real and urgent economic threat
“The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore associated with pleasure in other human rights,” said the president of the court Yui Iwasawa during the two -hour hearing. The inhabitant planet is a human right and is part of an international usual law, which means that each country is obliged to protect it, not only countries that have signed climatic contracts and other agreements, as stated by the Associated Press.
Violation of international law
The court of court said that climate change would not be solved, it may be a violation of international law. This depends on all countries and prepares the way for legal steps, including states returning to ICJ to answer each other; domestic litigation; and investment agreements that must correspond to international law.
Also read: India cannot solve the health risks of climate change without robust data
“Thanks to today’s authoritarian historical decision, the International Court of Justice broke with commercial and usual and provided historical confirmation: those suffering from climate devastation impacts have the right to remedy and full compensation,” said Joie Chowdhury, head lawyer in the Center for International Environmental Law.
Climate damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions
The court ruled that some countries or individuals suffering from climate change may be entitled to compensation.
Regarding climate damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions, “restitution may take the form of reconstruction of damaged or destroyed infrastructure and restoration of ecosystems and biological diversity,” the court said.
If this is not possible, financial compensation could be assessed, although the judges have admitted that “it may be difficult to calculate, because there is usually a certain degree of uncertainty about the exact extent of the damage caused”.
Also read: Indian climatic crisis: early waves of thermal waves, melting the Himalayan glaciers and the collapse of biodiversity
The judges have acknowledged that climate change can force people to escape from their homes, and emphasized that nations are responsible for the refusal of climate refugees whose lives are endangered. They also stated that if the country is submerged due to the growing sea level, it still retains its legal existence.
A healthy planet is a fundamental human right.
Those who suffer from the impact of climate devastation have the right to remedy and full compensation.
The Pacific Iceland nations looking for this decision is urgent. Since 1993, the sea levels around Vanuat have grown at approximately 6 millimeters (0.24 inches) per year, significantly above the global average, some areas experiencing an even greater increase due to tectonic activity.
(With the entry from agencies)
(Tagstotranslate) climate change
