Historic ruling finds climate change ‘imperils all forms of life’ and puts laggard nations on notice

Professor Jackie Peel’s response to the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion, published in The Conversation.

Climate change “imperils all forms of life” and countries must tackle the problem or face consequences under international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found.

The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations.

And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate.

Here’s what the court ruled – and the global ramifications likely to flow from it.

Climate change breaches human rights

The ICJ case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so.

The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.

The ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an:

“existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.

An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is not legally binding. But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight.

Just as climate science assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become the gold standard for understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, the court’s ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries’ action, or inaction, on climate change.

(This is an excerpt of the article, which can be read in full by clicking below.)