In a watershed advisory opinion,
In the Hague, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has said that “clean, healthy and durable environment” is a human right, and that failure to protect the planet from the effects of climate change can be a violation
International law.
Underlining the obligations of the states, due to being influenced by global temples to protect the human rights of citizens, the Supreme Court of the United Nations said that climate should be for “current and future generations”.
The ruling, ICJ President Yaji Ivaswa said, “Greenhouse gas emission occurs disqualified due to human activities and the crossborr effect is with far -reaching consequences.
Thesis, he said, “underlines the immediate and existential threat arising from climate change.”
Ivaswa said that it is the duty of countries to cooperate in preventing damage caused by climate change and ensure that their national climate goals represent the highest possible ambition.
The biggest case in ICJ history
Students from Pacific Island countries started the case after advocating governments for legal explanation.
Status of Vanuatu requested the ICJ to rule the obligations of states under international law to protect climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions. And in detail of current and future generations.
In December, the court narrated testimony from about 100 countries and 12 international organizations.
Speaking at the time, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Brown, told the judges that the increase in sea level drives “uncontrolled emissions” beaches of the island and “swallow land is important for our country.”
The Caribbean archipelago is erased from the growing sea level and the warming worlds result in more intorms as a result of the effects of the world.
Speaking as part of the December hearing, highly encouraging countries like the United States said that the current United Nations-Its 2015 Paris Agreement-Gives legal obligations on action to slow down climate change.
President Donald Trump has since announced his return to his country’s landmark agreement, which saw the 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and not to limit global warming to 1.5 ° C (2.7 Fahrenheit).
But experts say that the puris agreement was never intended to define all the laws around climate change.
Joy Chaudhary, Senior Advocate of Center for International Environmental Law (CIL), says the rising temperature “almost every possible dimension of our life,” is a lot of different laws. Therefore, the responsibility of the state as possible tools to implement climate action points to the existing international rules on human rights, international laws and laws.
“Climate treaties are very important, they are not just sports in the city,” he told DW.
Accountable for historical responsibility
In bringing the case to court, Vanuatu, as an acade for clarification on legal consequences for countries that failed to fulfill their obligations on slowing down their emissions.
Some experts say that the most attributed to the United States, China, Russia and the European Union – Countries that cumually emit CO2 – take the most responsibility for global warming.
“The previous emission,” Chaudhary told DW, saying that the loss has already happened. “It should be recognized and repaired.”
Poor countries have been calling rich countries for a long time that they have been paying for the damage caused by the extreme weather that is heating the planet. Foys of these low rich states experience the worst effects of climate change, yet that is minimized to contribute to the crisis.
ICJ advisor warned that “Adverse effects and losses and damage will increase with every salary increase of global warming”.
A loss and damage fund was set up in the UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but only $ 700 million in the vows. This is much less than that of hundreds of billions of dollars experts, saying that climate change can cost damage by 2030.
“In his heart, the matter is about accountability. It is an indication to end the era of empty vows,” Chaudhary said.
Effect of climate change on human rights
ICJ Advisor Rai is one of the three to underline the state compulsory around climate action in the months of Mont.
Earlier this month, the Inter-US Court of Human Rights issued by the Advisory Rai to claim the responsibilities of countries to protect the human rights of citizens by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate.
The opinion highlighted the responsibility of the states regarding disintegration and misinformation, stating that the authorities should not obstruct the reach of population for “reliable, truth and complete information” required to address risks to human rights through climate emergency.
And in May last year, the International Tribunal for the sea law first recognized greenhouse gases as marine pollution to issue its advisory opinion.
Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they have significant legal weight and moral rights.
Speaking before Wednesday’s decision, Chaudhary said the advisor’s opinion could have far -reaching consequences for the November COP30 climate dialogue in Brazil. This may mean “everything is not for conversation” because some things are defined, clearly legally.
“We hopes so much that this clarity will provide a very legal blueprint that will allow states and those who are the most affected to capture pollutants who are accountable to climate disruptive conduct and secure and re -achieve measures,” he said.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker
