ICJ Says Climate Change an ‘Existential Threat’, States Legally Bound to Act

On Wednesday, ICJ decided that states had to take all the necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stop fossil fuel expansion and provide compensation to the vulnerable countries with damaged climate.

He found that acting according to emissions, including fossil fuel production, subsidies and licenses, could create a “international wrong action” that can be attributed to the state.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, who calls climate change “the concern of planetary rates that push all kinds of lifestyles”, added that the Court’s “consequences to inform and guide social and political actions to solve the ongoing climate crisis”.

The Court has decided that the legal discretionary authorities were not absolute in determining the climate objectives known as national contributions (NDCs).

Instead, states are obliged to implement a “strict” standard of determination, reflecting their goals “the highest possible passion” and compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Importantly, the decision explains that if the repayment is financially impossible, it should compensate for climate damage caused by responsible states and thus form a solid legal precedent for compensation.

Although the consultation view is not legally binding, it benefits from existing international treaties and norms and is expected to have a comprehensive effect on global climatic cases.

Climate policy experts are likely to specify the opinion of those who target governments and fossil fuel companies and those who target fossil fuel companies in future cases, especially in future cases.

The court’s decision was directed by youth -led groups, such as the Vanuatu Government and Pacific Island students from South Pacific University and Pacific Island students, and by the youth -led groups for the world youth for climate justice. His efforts unanimously resulted in the UN General Assembly decision, which demanded ICJ’s opinion.

Legal experts say that the opinion will sharpen the tools to keep pollutants responsible and to strengthen human rights principles such as a healthy environmental right, and that the court will re -confirm as a prerequisite to take advantage of a binding norm and other rights.

Reacting to the decision, Sarah Mead, the co -director of the climate case network, said the decision “what they want and expects from the governments of the majority of people around the world”.

He said that ICJ’s findings were built on decisions of more than one judicial field that is legally responsible for insufficient climatic action.

Lorenzo Cotula, the chief researcher of the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), said the tension between the ICJ decision and the current international investment laws.

In the light of the investment state dispute system in the light of the court’s findings, international treaties protecting foreign investments, including fossil fuel infrastructure, may make it difficult for governments to fulfill this task. “

Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Island students who fought climate change, said, “Today, the smallest countries in the world have written history.”

His view called the “life line” for the facade communities that have the least contributing to climate change but have the most serious effects.

Tasneem ESSOP, General Manager of International, the climatic action network, said that the decision pointed out the end of the “unpunished period”.

“Governments and companies are currently facing the UN Climate Conference in Brazil (COP30),” governments and companies are now facing the weight of scientific evidence and international law “.

Harjeet Singh, the founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, described his opinion as “a statement that has ended the end of the impunity for pollutants and innocent states”.

He said that the findings opened the door for full compensation and “pollutants should pay”.

The decision also has effects on climate negotiations. As the basis of the future climatic governance of activists and developing countries, it increases risks for future peaks, including COP30 in Brazil, which is expected to print for accountability and compensation.

During the ICJ trials earlier this year, India argued that developed countries should historically contribute to global emissions and assume the primary responsibility for climate change.

“If the contribution to deterioration is unequal, the responsibility should not be equal,” the Luther M Rangreji, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who made a presentation on behalf of India.

India called on the Court to avoid creating new obligations beyond the current international climatic regime, which he said he said he had explained the principle of historical emissions, climate justice and common but differentiated responsibilities and relevant abilities (CBDR-RC).

He said that the court should meet the financial and technology obligations of developed countries and say, “They should reach a net-fiber before 2050, and to lead the countries with an example,” Unequal and unjust to expect countries with negligible historical emissions to bring an equal burden in reducing climate change. ” He said.

In 2009, India also criticized the unconscious promise of the US $ 100 billion at the Copenhagen Climate Summit at the Copenhagen Climate Summit and called for the new climate finance package in Baku in COP29 to meet the urgent needs.

Emphasizing his own efforts, India said that although humanity constitutes about six -sixth, its contribution to historical emissions is less than 4 percent and that greenhouse gas emissions per capita are below half of the global average.

Rangreji said that he acts as a “solution provider” in good faith “even when balanced the necessities of the elimination of poverty and sustainable development.

He also warned that the interpretation of the evidence could be prejudiced and that the decisions cannot be guided only by science, and warned against extreme confidence against climatic science that developed obligations.

More than 90 countries, including both large spreaders and vulnerable island states, presented the views of more than 90 countries to the court. While some such as India and the United States defended the priority of the current UN framework, others sought a strong legal aspect over climatic obligations. PTI GVS