A top UN court has ruled that countries can sue each other over climate change, including historic emissions of planet-warming gases. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision is non-binding but has significant consequences.
Countries vulnerable to climate change have brought cases against more developed nations, claiming they are failing to tackle the growing problem. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that countries must develop ambitious plans to address climate change or face consequences under international law.
The ruling holds that developing nations can seek damages for impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It also suggests that governments can be held liable for the climate impact of companies operating within their borders.
Climate lawyers believe this decision could pave the way for compensation from countries responsible for historic greenhouse gas emissions. The court’s opinion is advisory, but previous decisions have been implemented by governments.
The case was initiated by young law students from low-lying Pacific islands, who argued that developed nations had a responsibility to protect their communities from climate change impacts. The ruling has been welcomed by campaigners and climate lawyers, who see it as a victory for frontline communities fighting against climate change.
While the ICJ opinion may not be enforceable in all cases, it could influence national courts outside of the ICJ. The decision’s implications are still being debated, but one thing is clear: countries must take responsibility for their role in global warming and work towards ambitious climate solutions.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce379k4v3pwo