(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Historic ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-07-25
An article reprinted July 25 by Juan Cole in Informed Comment reviews a Historic Int’l Court of Justice Ruling: Climate Change ‘Imperils all Life’ — Polluters may be Sued
The article begins: “Climate change “imperils all forms of life” and “countries must tackle the problem or face consequences under international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found.”
The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations. And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate.
The article explains that the ICJ case “was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019.”
They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so.
The article continues:
The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.
The article points out that the ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.” It further explains:
Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.
The article states that an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is not legally binding.
But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight…..the court’s ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries’ action, or inaction, on climate change.
Keeping 1.5°C alive? The article points out that in recent years, “many states’ emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement have seemed to “settle” at levels which would hold global temperature increases to 2°C at best.”
But the International Court of Justice ruled the much more ambitious 1.5°C goal had become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement.
The article explains that “the ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement” and it also provides “a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations.”
The court found each state’s emissions reduction pledges should be judged against a stringent “due diligence” standard. The standard takes into account each country’s historical contributions to emissions, level of development and national circumstances, among other factors.
In conclusion, the article says “if a nation experiences damage caused by the failure of another nation, or group of nations, to fulfil international climate obligations, the ruling means legal proceedings may be launched against the nations causing the harm. It may result in compensation or other remedies.”
the ICJ ruling will set a new baseline in terms what countries need to do to address climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.
The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year. As the article points out: “The court’s opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound.”
The original article reprinted by Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan can be read here.
--------------------------—
UPDATE: This related article is very interesting: World’s highest court issues groundbreaking ruling for climate action. Here’s what it means for Australia.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/25/2335190/-Historic-ruling-by-the-International-Court-of-Justice-ICJ-on-climate?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
