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

A historical decision by the United Nations Supreme Court has cleared the way for the countries to prosecute each other due to climate change, including the historical emissions of gases that calm the planet.

But the Judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands on Wednesday said the birth that caused any part of climate change may be difficult.

The ruling is not binding, but legal experts say it can have widespread consequences.

It will be seen as a victory for the countries that are very exposed to climate change, who came to the court after feeling frustrated by the lack of global progress in addressing the problem.

The unprecedented case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was one of the girls of the ideas of a group of young law students from the low -Pacific islands on the front lines of climate change, who reached this idea in 2019.

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

“I am lost to words. This is very exciting. There are many feelings that accelerate us. This is a victory that we proudly return to our societies,” BBC News told BBC News.

“Tonight will sleep easier. The International Court of Justice has realized what we have lived in – our suffering, our flexibility and our right to our future,” said Flura Vano, of the Pacific Island of Pacific, which is the country most vulnerable to harsh weather in the world.

“This is a victory not only for us, but for every society in the lines of confrontation to hear.”

The International Court of Justice is the highest court in the world and has global jurisdiction. Lawyers told the BBC News that opinion can be used early next week, including in the national courts outside the International Court of Justice.

Activists and climate lawyers hope that the landmark decision now will pave the way for compensation from countries that historically burned the most fossil fuel, and therefore it is the most responsible for the global warming phenomenon.

Many poor countries have supported the issue out of frustration, claiming that developed countries fail to maintain the current promises to address the increasing problem.

But developed countries, including the United Kingdom, have argued that existing climate agreements, including the United Nations Paris deal in 2015, are sufficient and no other legal obligations should be imposed.

On Wednesday, the court rejected this argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yogi also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious plans to address climate change, this will be a violation of their promises to the Paris Agreement.

He added that the broader international law applies, which means that countries that have not been registered on the Paris Agreement – or want to leave, such as the United States – are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system.

The court’s opinion is a consultant, but the decisions of the previous International Court of Justice were implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to return the Shaghus Islands to Mauritius last year.

“The ruling is a legal moment in his victory,” said Joy Chaudhry, the first lawyer at the International Environmental Law Center (CIEL).

She added: “With the reliable historical judgment today, the International Court of Justice broke with the usual business and made a historical assertion: those who suffer from the effects of climate destruction have the right to treat climate harm, including through compensation.”

A spokesman for the UK’s Commonwealth and Development Office said that it “takes some time” to consider opinion before commenting in detail, but added:

“Taking climate change is and will remain an urgent and global priority in the United Kingdom. Our position remains that it is better to achieve this through international commitment to the United Nations -existing climate treaties and mechanisms.”

The court ruled that developing countries have the right to search for damage to the effects of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

He added that where part of a country cannot be restored, its government may want to request compensation.

This may be for the specified harsh weather event if it is possible to prove that climate change caused it, but the judge said that this must be determined on the basis of each case.

“This is a great victory for the weak countries of the climate. It is a great victory for Vanuato, who led this issue and will change the advocacy of the climate,” said lawyer Jennifer Robinson at Dott Street Chambers, who represented Vanuao and Marshall Islands.

It is not clear how much the individual country can pay for damage if any claim succeeds.

But the previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019, there were losses of $ 2.8 trillion of climate change – or $ 16 million per hour.

During the evidence sessions in December, the court heard dozens of residents of the Pacific Island that were displaced as a result of sea level rise, due to climate change.

The Marshall Islands highlighted that the costs of its island to adapt to climate change are $ 9 billion.

“This is 9 billion dollars that the Marshall Islands does not have,” said Robinson.

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

He said specifically that supporting the fossil fuel industry or agreeing to new oil and gas licenses may be in violation of the country’s obligations.

Developing countries are already exploring new issues seeking compensation for the historical contributions of climate change against the richer countries and relying on ICJ’s opinion, according to lawyers, BBC spoke.

If a country wants to return the case to the International Court of Justice to issue a ruling on compensation, it can only do so against the countries that have agreed to its jurisdiction, which includes the likes of the United Kingdom, but not the United States or China.

However, a case can be filed in any court in the world, whether local or international, noting the opinion of the International Court of Justice, explained by Joy Chaudhry from a torrent.

Therefore, instead, the country may choose to take their cause not to the International Court of Justice, but a court where these countries are binding, for example, federal courts in the United States.

But the question remains whether ICJ’s opinion will be respected.

“[The ICJ] Harshaj Narula, the climate lawyer in Dugti Street Chambers, who represented the Solomon Islands, said that the institution that is subject to the geography of political – and it depends on the countries that adhere to its provisions, it does not have a police force.

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

“As is always the case, President Trump and the entire administration are committed to setting America first and setting the priorities of the interests of ordinary Americans.”