UN’s top court rules countries liable for climate harm
The United Nations Top Court decided a turning point in the climate change, which the Court called the President of the Court “an existential problem of planetary rates that push all kinds of life and the health of our planet.”
The UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to answer two questions: What are the countries that have to make the climate and the environment from human -based greenhouse gas emissions within the scope of international law? And what are the legal consequences for governments when actions or lack of action cause significant damage to the climate and environment?
Here are some key points from the non -binding consultation view:
*A healthy planet is a basic human right
The court said in a simple statement that may have deep legal consequences, everyone has the right to a livable planet.
The President of the Court Yuji Iwasawa, at a two -hour hearing, “Human right of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is in the nature of enjoying other human rights.” He said.
A livable planet is human right and is a part of international traditional law, that is, every country is not only for the countries that sign climate agreements and other agreements, but to protect it.
*Violation of international law
The court said that the inability to address climate change could be a violation of international law.
This is important because it applies to all countries, and the states that return to ICJ are also to take into account each other; Internal cases; and investment agreements that should comply with international law.
“With today’s authorized historical decision, the International Court of Justice was broken and gave a historical approval as usual: Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer in the International Environmental Law Center, was a senior lawyer. He said.
*Compensation
The Court has decided that some countries or individuals who suffered from the effects of climate change may be suitable for compensation.
The court said, “Compensation, damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and restore ecosystems and biological diversity,” he said for the climate damage connected to greenhouse gas emissions. “
If this is not possible, even though judges have accepted it, financial compensation can be evaluated, because there is usually uncertainty to some extent according to the exact scope of the cause damage. “
The activists accepted a part of the decision as a historical turning point in the quest for justice. “ICJ’s decision is approaching a world where governments can no longer look at the legal responsibilities of the governments. The protection of this crisis, repentance and a future director Vishal Prasad, the preservation of this crisis, the repentance of this crisis, and those who feed at least the future,” he said.
*Climate refugees
Judges said that people may have to escape their homes to escape the dangers of climate change, and that countries have to turn down climate refugees when their lives are dangerous. If a country disappears under rising ocean levels, that country will not stop existence.
The threat to the Pacific Island countries that forced the view. Since 1993, sea levels on the shores of Vanuatu have increased by about 6 millimeters per year – significantly faster than the global average – and in some regions tectonic activity has doubled this ratio.
