International Court of Justice Requires Global Backing for Climate Protection

Subscribe to daily news updates from CleanTechnica via email. Alternatively, follow us on Google News!

---

Everyone has a vested interest in safeguarding our climate. After all, its well-being is essential for human existence.

However, the effects of climate pollution are felt universally. Consequences such as increasing temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, more frequent extreme weather events, and rising sea levels pose threats to our health, impacting the food we consume, the water we rely on, the air we inhale, and the climate we endure.

The fundamental rights to life, health, food, shelter, and safety are increasingly at risk. To grasp the severe implications of climate change, consider this: if global average temperatures reach or exceed 2°C by the century’s end, climate change could result in the deaths of 1 billion people. Although governments should be regulating emissions and pollution, many are not fulfilling this responsibility.

International law is anchored in the legally binding Paris climate agreement, where countries committed to limit temperature increases to within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, the absence of an enforcement mechanism in the Paris agreement raises the question: shouldn’t courts ensure that national and international governments uphold their climate commitments?

In fact, numerous cases have emerged as activists turn to the judiciary to safeguard the climate. They have sought rulings related to corporate greenwashing, the recognition of climate change as a human right, and even compensation from corporations for climate-induced damages in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.

Contribute a few dollars each month to support independent cleantech journalism that seeks to accelerate the cleantech revolution!

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of efforts to tackle climate change through legal channels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes human rights-centered climate litigation as a vital method for fostering more ambitious climate measures, noting that successful litigation “can lead to a rise in a country’s overall commitment to address climate change.”

Nevertheless, pursuing climate litigation presents considerable challenges. Cases often become mired in extensive hearings and motions, as well as counter-litigation and challenges to climate regulations.

A recent article in Nature highlights that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the main judicial body of the United Nations located in The Hague, Netherlands, will begin deliberating on two crucial questions.

1. What are the obligations of countries under international law regarding the protection of the climate system against human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions?
2. What legal repercussions should states face when their actions—or lack thereof—result in harm?

For instance, the Lancet, a respected medical journal, asserts that mitigating climate impacts calls for a unified effort that spans national boundaries, with an emphasis on global cooperation, shared responsibilities, and an unwavering commitment to justice and fairness. They stress that integrating human rights into climate initiatives highlights the urgent need to protect vulnerable communities, ensuring their rights to health, safety, and a sustainable environment.

Will governments engage with the ICJ not merely out of national self-interest but as advocates for a thriving planet where humans and nature coexist peacefully now and in the future? This question was posed by Adil Najam, president of the WWF, in an editorial earlier this month. Najam is urging scientists and citizens globally to support the ICJ, asserting that the court’s opinion “will amplify the voices of millions of scientists and citizens demanding ambitious action for climate and nature conservation.”

Should courts intervene in what could be perceived as political matters, as some commentators suggest? Shouldn’t governments, which lack strong enforcement mechanisms, legislate to cover such gaps? Given the significant risks posed by climate change, it is logical for governments to pursue the most effective paths for climate solutions. However, a complicating factor arises—the social dilemma in which all individuals would benefit from joint efforts in regional courts to protect the climate, yet many representatives deflect due to conflicting interests that discourage collaborative action.

As noted in a 2023 article from Cambridge University Press, the significant rise in climate litigation over the last decade is “a manifestation of the democratization of climate action” and a response to inadequate government and corporate climate initiatives. International climate law offers “fertile ground for judicial development” because, despite the binding nature of the Paris agreement, the obligations on states are “sparse and ambiguous.”

Courts can act as agents of change, urging legislative bodies to take meaningful action. Therefore, until more legislative organizations accept accountability in climate matters, the ICJ will be required to adjudicate. The ICJ stands as the highest court, establishing responsibility guidelines for climate-related damages and the obligations of entities to safeguard the climate.

Legal Actions That Challenge Governments to Safeguard the Environment

According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at least 230 new climate cases were filed in 2023. By the end of last year, a total of 2,666 climate litigation cases were initiated globally. Many of these cases aim to hold governments and corporations responsible for their climate actions. The claimants include individuals of all ages and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), all seeking accountability for climate promises and seeking advisory opinions from national, regional, and international courts.

Here are a few recent notable climate court cases.

In a landmark case, sixteen young plaintiffs sued the state of Montana, alleging it failed to uphold their rights under the law to provide citizens with a “clean and healthful environment.” The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the state’s actions had harmed the environment and the young citizens by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects.

In May, courts in Germany and the United Kingdom separately determined that their governments’ policies would not achieve the legally mandated emissions reduction targets.

Last September, California filed a lawsuit against five of the world’s largest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell—along with their subsidiaries, demanding that they compensate for the environmental and health impacts caused by their operations and assist in protecting the state against future climate change harms.

Additionally, Brazil’s public prosecutor’s office, along with the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, is pursuing compensation for damages linked to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from illegal deforestation.