UN court’s ‘historic ruling’ on climate change

A landmark decision by a top United Nations (UN) court, which has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, could have wide-ranging consequences says Midlands green energy expert Ron Fox.

He was commenting on a recent ruling by a judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, Netherlands, over the historic emissions of planet-warming gases.

The ruling was non-binding. But it will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.

“It is an historic ruling, but untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult,” said Ron, of Noreus Ltd on the University of Keele Science and Innovation Park.

Governments and climate campaigners went to the Hague to hear the court’s opinion after the case was brought by a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, led by those living in Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands and who came up with the idea in 2019.

The ICJ is considered the world’s highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore most responsible for global warming.

Many poorer countries claimed that developed nations had failed to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, were sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.

However, Judge Iwasawa Yuji rejected the wealthier countries’ argument, saying that if they didn’t tackle develop plans to tackle climate change, this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He added also that broader international law applies, which means that countries not signed up to the Paris Agreement – or want to leave, like the USA – are still required to protect the environment.

The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

It added that where it was not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation.

This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful.

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

The Marshall Islands said the costs for their island to adapt to climate change are $9 billion.

The court’s opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.

“The ruling is a watershed legal moment,” concluded Ron, “I just hope the ICJ opinion will be respected.”

‘For those wanting more advice about how to help beat climate change, call Ron on 0845 474 6641 or contact us here

Caption: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) logo