Vanuatu's climate change minister Ralph Regenvanu joined climate activists in the International Court of Justice on Wednesday. The country has pushed for years to hear its first major climate change case. Peter Dejong/AP Hide Title
Switch title
Peter Dejong/ap
The top UN courts ruled that under international law, states have an obligation to limit climate change, and that countries that do not take action can bear legal liability for climate damage elsewhere.
This decision was a victory for many small countries vulnerable to climate impacts, which led to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declaring the issue.
This is the first major court ruling on climate change, but the decision is only consultative, which means that countries are not legally bound. Still, legal experts say this could promote other climate change lawsuits pending in national courts around the world.
“It’s really groundbreaking,” said Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate change litigation at Columbia Law School. “I think it will create this new wave of climate litigation.”
The case was advocated by the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, one of the voices that joined other island countries to call for stronger international climate action. Low-lying countries face serious risks of rising sea levels and stronger cyclones.
In a December court lawsuit, Vanuatu and other countries believed that countries were obliged to act on climate change under international laws that protect the environment and human rights. In Wednesday's ruling, the International Court of Justice agreed.
Judge Ivazer read from the court’s opinion: “To ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights, measures must be taken to protect the climate system and other environments.”
The court also found that if countries fail to curb heat emissions from fossil fuels, they may work to pay other countries for damages related to climate change. Such payments have been a point of dispute between major launchers and low-income counties in annual climate change negotiations.
The United States does not generally consider ICJ decisions to be binding. Earlier this year, President Trump also pulled the United States out of the major international climate agreements under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
Nevertheless, smaller countries have said they hope the decision of the International Court of Justice will be a turning point in international climate negotiations.
“Today, this is a milestone,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Climate Minister in Vanuatu. “It is a very important course correction during this critical period.”
Island countries push for climate change ruling
Low-lying countries around the world have believed climate change to be an existing threat for many years. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since the Industrial Revolution and the pace is accelerating. Vanuatu is considering relocating the entire village from the coast. The cyclone caused huge losses to the South Pacific countries, and as the climate warmed up, the hurricane became stronger and stronger.
Vanuatu has a population of about 300,000, producing relatively small global emissions from burning fossil fuels that capture heat and warm the planet. Most of the emissions come from larger, richer countries such as the United States, the European Union and China.
But Vanuatu officials believe this is the first to bear the problem.
“We find ourselves on the frontline of the crisis we have not caused, and it is a crisis that threatens our existence,” Regenvanu said in December before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Vanuatu leads a coalition of countries to call on the International Court of Justice to ruling climate change, stimulated by a group of students in the Pacific Islands. The court is located in The Hague, regarding the rules of dispute between international law and states. Nearly 100 countries filed testimony, the biggest case the court has heard.
Are countries obliged to act on climate change?
The court raised two questions: Is the state obliged to act on climate change? If harm is caused, what are the legal consequences?
At the hearing, the United States argued that negotiations through international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, were the best way to resolve climate change.
“Through this system, cooperative efforts provide the greatest hope for the protection of the interests of the climate system,” Margaret Taylor said.
In its ruling on Wednesday, the International Court of Justice found that under international law, countries will surely curb greenhouse gas emissions. This includes taking action For example, restricting and producing fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, and even providing subsidies to these industries. It also found that states could be held responsible for specific damages caused by climate change. Advances in climate science help determine the contribution of climate change to specific disasters.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice recognizes that the advisory ruling may have minimal impact.
“International law … has an important but ultimately limited role in solving this problem,” the judgment said. “A complete solution to this difficult and self-caused problem requires the contribution of all areas of human knowledge, whether it is law, science, economics or anything else.”
Potential international impact
The case could impact hundreds of other climate change lawsuits around the world, providing evidence for plaintiffs trying to inspire government action. The case has been filed in the Netherlands, such as the United States and European countries, and the court ruled that the Netherlands must reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“It's really the biggest case we've seen in climate litigation, and the status and weight of the court do affect a lot of these cases,” Tiger said.
The decision of the International Court of Justice can also be cited in Brazil's COP30 international climate negotiations this fall. There, smaller countries like Vanuatu will continue to compensate wealthy countries for compensation for damages from climate change, known as “loss and damages” payments.
Climate activists, like Vishal Prasad of Pacific Island students, have given new impetus to their movement.
“I think this sends a strong message to all of us and young people everywhere,” Prasad said. “There is still hope, chance, and we have reason to continue fighting.”