Historic ruling: Failure to act on climate change "is unlawful," says Hague Tribunal

BarcelonaFailure to take action to protect the planet from climate change could violate international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled in a advisory opinion regarding states' obligations to curb global warming. A state's failure to take "appropriate measures to protect the climate system may constitute an internationally wrongful act," said Tribunal President Yuji Iwasawa on Wednesday in the verdict announcement in The Hague, the seat of the Court. The ICJ held that climate change treaties establish "binding obligations" for signatory countries, and that failure to comply with these obligations is an "internationally wrongful act" that can give rise to "reparations."

Thus, the climate crisis is no longer merely a political or moral challenge facing humanity. It is now also a matter of international legality, according to the United Nations' highest court. States, therefore, have an obligation to reduce their emissions and compensate the countries most affected by their harmful effects, a debate that is always addressed at UN summits on climate change, but which, despite the commitments made, never fully materializes. "Climate change poses an existential problem of planetary proportions, threatening all forms of life and the very health of the planet," the presiding judge also declared from the Palau de la Pau in The Hague.

The Court's ruling answers two key questions: what are the obligations of states, under international law, to protect present and future generations from global warming, and what legal consequences do countries face that fail to fulfill these duties. "The consequences of climate change are serious and far-reaching. They affect both natural ecosystems and human populations," Judge Iwasawa remarked.

An end to legal impunity?

One of the most relevant contributions of the opinion is the rejection of the argument of lex specialis, defended by some developed countries and major polluters. This interpretation held that treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Paris Agreement were the only applicable frameworks for determining obligations. The ICJ rejects this and establishes that the rules of customary international law remain applicable, even for countries that are not party to these agreements. with the return of Donald Trump to the White House, as it had done in 2017, during its first presidency.

As for the Paris Agreement itself, the court has reaffirmed its goal of 1.5°C as the essential limit and described the mitigation obligations as "strict". It has also noted that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which each state must update every five years, are not discretionary measures, but rather commitments that must be sufficient to achieve the agreement's objectives. "NDCs must meet certain standards and, as a whole, must be capable of achieving the treaty's objectives," Iwasawa stressed.

The ICJ has gone further and established the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as an indispensable condition for the enjoyment of all fundamental rights. This affirmation reflects a long-standing demand from developing countries and consolidates the international recognition of a right proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 2022. "The protection of the environment is a precondition for the health and well-being of present and future generations," the judge ruled.

The origin of this advisory opinion lies in the initiative of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) group, launched in 2019 by young activists from Pacific Island nations, which contribute less than 1% of global emissions but suffer the most devastating effects. The PISFCC, which is the largest country in the world, celebrated Vishal Prasad, director of the PISFCC. "This ruling brings closer the time when governments can no longer ignore their legal responsibilities. It's a lifeline for Pacific communities on the front lines of the crisis. When a Pacific Rim tribunal draws connections between state behavior and legal norms, the impact goes far beyond the individual case."

The ICJ's opinions and rulings are not binding. However, they can carry considerable weight, and Wednesday's decision is expected to accelerate climate litigation globally. "When a tribunal like the ICJ recognizes that a failure to reduce emissions may constitute a violation of international obligations, it opens the door to new legal claims," said Sébastien Duyck, a lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law.

The ICJ's decision is part of a growing trend: more and more international and constitutional courts are taking up cases related to the climate crisis. Last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) classified carbon emissions as marine pollutants and demanded measures to prevent their effects. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) also declared that both states and corporations have binding obligations to address the climate crisis as a human rights emergency, placing irreversible damage on the same level as international crimes such as genocide or torture.