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

A historic decision of a Top court of the United Nations has cleared the way for countries to prosecute each other on climate change, including historical emissions of planetary-warming gases.

But a judge of the International Court of Justice in Hague, Netherlands said on Wednesday which part of climate change could be difficult.

The ruling is non-negotiable, but legal experts say it can have widespread consequences.

It will be seen as a win for countries that are very weak for climate change, who came to court after feeling disappointed about the lack of global progress in dealing with the problem.

The unprecedented case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brain of a group of students of the young law of the lower Pacific Islands on the climate change front, which came up with this idea in 2019.

One of those students, Ciosua Vikune from Tonga, was in the Hague to listen to the verdict.

He told BBC News, “I am lost for words. It is very exciting. We have a toned feelings through us. This is a victory that we proudly take back home to our communities.”

“Tonight I will sleep easily. The ICJ has recognized what we are doing – our pain, our flexibility and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano to Pacific Island Vanuu, which is considered the weakest for the extreme weather globally.

“This is a win not only for us but also for every frontline community that is fighting to listen.”

ICJ is considered the Supreme Court of the world and has global jurisdiction. The lawyers have told BBC News that opinions can be used early next week, including national courts outside the ICJ.

Campares and climate lawyers hop that historical decisions will now pave the way for compensation from countries who historically have burnt the most fossil fuel and hence the most responsible for global warming.

Many poor countries had dropped the matter out of despair, claiming that developed nations are failing to maintain existing promises to deal with the growing problem.

But developed countries, including the UK, argued that the existing climate agreement, including the 2015 Landmark United Nations Paris deal, is sufficient and no other legal obligation should be imposed.

On Wednesday, the court rejected that argument.

Judge Ivaswa Yuji also said that if the country does not develop the most ambitious potential plans to deal with climate change, it would be a violation of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He said that comprehensive international law applies, which means that countries that have not signed the Paris Agreement – or want to leave like the US – are still necessary to protect the environment including the climate system.

The court’s opinion is an advisor, but the previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by the governments, when the UK agreed to return the Chagos Island to Mauritius last year.

“The ruling is a watershed legal moment,” said Joi Chaudhary, senior advocate of Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

“With today’s official historical decision, the International Court of Justice has broken trade-like-normal and provided a historical affirmation: people suffering from climate destruction have the right to take measures for climate damage, including compensation,” he said.

A spokesman for the UK foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said that before making a detailed comment, “was taking time” to see Rai, but added:

“Climate change is to be dealt with and will remain an essential UK and global priority. Our situation is that it is best obtained through the United Nations’s current climate treaties and international commitment to mechanisms.”

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

It states that where it is not possible to restore a part of a country, its government can seek compensation.

This can be a specific extreme weather phenomenon if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the judge said it would need to be determined on a case based on the case.

“This climate is a huge win for weak states. It is a very big win for Vanuatu, which led the matter and is going to change the face of climate advocacy,” said Barrister Jennifer Robinson at Batty Street Chambers, who represented Vanuatu and Marshal Islands.

Unexpected origin of case

It is not clear how much a person may have to pay for the loss if a claim is successful.

But the previous analysis published in nature estimated that there was $ 2.8 trillion loss from climate change between 2000 and 2019 – or $ 16 million per hour.

During evidence sessions in December, the court heard from dozens of Prashant Islands who have been displaced as a result of rising sea level due to climate change.

The Marshall Islands highlighted that the cost of their island for climate change is $ 9 billion.

Ms. Robinson said, “It is $ 9 billion, which is not in martial islands. Climate change is a problem that she has not done, but is forced to consider transferring her capital,” said Ms. Robinson.

Along with compensation, the court also ruled that governments were responsible for the climate effects of companies working in their countries.

This specifically stated that giving subsidy to the fossil fuel industry or approval of new oil and gas license can be in violation of the country’s obligations.

According to BBC lawyers, according to the BBC, citing ICJ’s opinion, new cases seeking compensation for historical contribution to historical contribution to climate change against Amir are already discovering new cases.

If a country wants to bring back a case in ICJ to decide on compensation, it can only do against the countries that have agreed to its jurisdiction, including the choice of the UK, but not the US or China.

But a case can be brought to any court globally, whether it is domestic or international, explained to Joy Chaudhary from Joil, citing ICJ Rai.

Therefore, instead a country can opt for its case not to take its case in ICJ but to a court, where they bind the federal courts in the US America.

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

,[The ICJ] There is an institution that is subject to geopolitics – and it depends on the states that follow their decisions, “it does not have a police force,” said Harj Narulla, a climate barrister in Douti Street Chambers, said, which also represents the Solomon Islands.

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

“As usual, President Trump and the entire administration are committed to keeping America first and prioritizing the interests of Americans everyday.”