Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change

A turning point of a senior UN court led countries to sue each other for climate change, including historical emissions of planetary -heated gases.

However, on Wednesday, the judge in the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands, Hague, said who has solved which part of the climate change could be difficult.

The decision is not binding, but legal experts say it may have extensive consequences.

It will be seen as a victory for the countries that come to court after disappointing the lack of global progress in overcoming the problem.

The unprecedented case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brain of a group of young law students from the Low Pacific Islands on the front of the climate change in 2019.

One of these students was in The Hague to hear the decision from Tonga to Siosiua veikune.

“I disappeared for words. This is very exciting. There is a ton of emotion that rushes. This is a gains that we return to our communities with pride.”

“I will sleep more easily tonight. ICJ recognized our experiences, our pain, our flexibility and our future.” He said.

“This is a victory not only for us, but also for every front community war.”

ICJ is considered the highest court in the world and has global jurisdiction. Lawyers told BBC News that the opinion can be used early next week, including national courts other than ICJ.

Campaigns and climatic lawyers hope that the turning point decision will now open the path of compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.

Many poor countries supported the case from disappointment, claiming that developed countries could not keep their promises to cope with the growing problem.

However, developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the 2015 turning point UN Paris Agreement, are sufficient and should not be applied any other legal obligations.

On Wednesday, the court rejected this claim.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious plans to cope with climate change, this would be a violation of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

Authorized, wider international law is valid, that is, the Paris agreement, such as the United States, such as the United States, including the climate system is still necessary to protect the environment, he added.

The court’s opinion is consulting, but previous ICJ decisions were implemented by governments, including when Britain agreed to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.

“Decision is a legal moment,” the International Environmental Law Center (CIEL) Senior Lawyer Joie Chowdhury said, “Decision is a legal moment.” He said.

“With today’s authorized historical decision, the International Court of Justice was broken with jobs and gave a historical approval: Those who suffer from the effects of climate destruction have the right to remedy for climate damages, including compensation.”

BBC contacted the United Kingdom government for comment.

When the decision was asked, a White House spokesman told BBC News:

“As always, President Trump and the entire administration are determined to put America in the first place and give priority to the interests of daily Americans.”

The Court has decided that developing countries have the right to harm the effects of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

He added that his government may want to seek compensation in cases where it is not possible to restore a part of a country.

This may be for a certain excessive weather event, but the judge said that it should be determined in a case according to the situation.

“This climate is a big gain for vulnerable states. A big gain for Vanuatu will manage this case and change the face of climate advocacy.” He said.

If any request is successful, it is not clear how much compensation of an individual country may need to pay.

However, previous analysis published in nature, between 2000 and 2019, $ 2.8 trillion was missing from climate change or $ 16 million per hour.

During the evidence sessions in December, the court received news from Duzines Pacific Adalı, which was displaced as a result of the rising sea level caused by climate change.

The Marshall Islands stressed that the costs of their islands to adapt to climate change are $ 9 billion.

“This is 9 billion dollars that the Marshall Islands do not have. It is a problem they do not cause climate change, but they have to think of changing their capital.” He said.

In addition to compensation, the court also decided that governments are responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries.

In particular, the subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry or approved new oil and gas licenses may violate the obligations of a country.

According to the lawyers speaking by the BBC, developing countries are already bringing new cases seeking compensation for historical contributions to climate change against richer, high -emitting nations.

If a country wants to bring a lawsuit to ICJ to make a decision on compensation, it can do it against countries that accept the jurisdiction of the British, not only the US or China.

However, by referring to the ICJ view, a lawsuit can be filed globally in any court, whether local or international, Joie Chowdury of Ciel.

Therefore, a country can choose to take its cases to a court where these countries are affiliated to the federal courts in the United States, not ICJ.

However, the question continues to respect the ICJ view.

“[The ICJ] It is an institution subject to geopolitics – and it is based on states depending on its decisions, it has no police force,