ICJ rules climate-change treaties are binding
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that climate-change treaties set out binding obligations on states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from greenhouse-gas emissions.
The United Nations’ highest court delivered a ruling yesterday (23 July) in what was described as a landmark ruling on two questions put to it by the UN General Assembly.
The assembly asked what were countries’ obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse-gas emissions, and what were the legal consequences for countries that harmed the climate system?
The judges said that international law set out obligations on states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from greenhouse-gas emissions.
These obligations included:
- A duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, and
- A duty to co-operate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires “sustained and continuous forms of co-operation” by states when taking measures to prevent such harm.
Wrongful act
The court also held that a breach by a state of any climate-related obligations that it had identified constituted “an internationally wrongful act entailing the responsibility of that state”.
It also set out the legal consequences from states resulting from such wrongful acts:
- The cessation of the wrongful actions or omissions, if they are continuing,
- Providing assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of wrongful actions or omissions, if circumstances so require, and
- Full reparation to injured states that could show “a direct and certain causal nexus” between the wrongful act and the injury, in the form of restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.
The ICJ, however, did not determine any specific legal consequences with respect to “specially affected” or “particularly vulnerable” states, finding that these were, in principle, entitled to the same remedies as other injured states.