The International Court of Justice (CIJ) in The Hague has established that countries can be liable for damage caused by climate change, including those related to historical greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the decision has an advisory and non -binding character, experts consider that it opens a new chapter in international climate law, with implications that can reach courts around the world.
The opinion was celebrated by developing countries and small Pacific Islands, who have been facing the worst effects of the climate crisis and has been pressured for concrete compensation measures.
“This is a victory not only for us, but for all the front line communities that fight to be heard,” he told BBC Flora Vano, from Vanuatu – country considered one of the most vulnerable to extreme weather events.
The action at CIJ originated in 2019, designed by a group of law students from island countries threatened by rising sea level. One of them, Tonga’s Siosi Veikune, was present in The Hague: “The court recognized our suffering, our resilience and our right to the future,” he said.
The decision rejects the argument of developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, that the Paris Agreement would be sufficient to govern legal obligations in climate matters.
Continues after advertising
According to Judge Iwasawa Yuji, even countries who have not joined the treaty – or want to withdraw – still have international obligations to protect the global climate system.
Indemnities and new jurisprudence
The Court acknowledged that countries affected by extreme events, such as infrastructure destruction or population displacement, can seek financial compensation as long as they can demonstrate the causal link with the climate crisis.
It is still unclear how these calculations would be done, but studies estimate that the world lost $ 2.8 trillion with climate events between 2000 and 2019 – the equivalent of $ 16 million per hour.
Continues after advertising
In addition to compensation, CIJ has stated that governments are responsible for the environmental impacts caused by companies in their territories, which includes fossil fuel subsidies and new licenses for oil and gas exploration – measures that, according to the Court, may violate international obligations.
Legal pressure
The CIJ decision is not binding, but may serve as a basis for processes in national and international cuts. Countries such as the USA and China, which do not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the CIJ, can be prosecuted in other forums, such as American Federal Courts – a strategy already in evaluation, according to lawyers heard by BBC.
Lawyer Harj Narulla, who represented the Solomon Islands in this case, points out that implementation will depend on political will: “CIJ is an institution subject to geopolitics and has no power of coercion. Its impact will depend on the adhesion of states.”
Continues after advertising
Still, the opinion is already seen as a watershed in the struggle for climate justice. For Joie Chowdhury, from the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), “with this decision, the Court broke with the tradition and stated: who suffers from climate devastation is entitled to repair – including financial.”
