In a landmark decision, a leading UN court has opened the door for nations to sue each other over climate change, potentially addressing historical emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, a judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, noted Wednesday the inherent complexities in definitively attributing specific climate change impacts to particular actors.
While the ruling is non-binding, legal experts suggest it could have far-reaching implications on international climate law and policy.
The decision is being hailed as a victory for climate-vulnerable countries, who sought recourse from the court after expressing frustration with the perceived lack of global progress on climate action.
The unprecedented case before the ICJ originated from an initiative by young law students from low-lying Pacific island nations, which are particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change. The concept was conceived in 2019.
“Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” stated Flora Vano, representing Vanuatu, a Pacific Island nation considered among the most vulnerable to extreme weather events globally.
“This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”
The ICJ, recognized as the world’s highest court, possesses global jurisdiction. Legal professionals have indicated to BBC News that the advisory opinion could be invoked as early as next week.
Advocates and climate lawyers anticipate that this landmark decision will pave the way for compensation claims against nations historically responsible for the largest share of fossil fuel emissions and, consequently, global warming.
Many developing countries supported the case out of frustration, arguing that developed nations are failing to meet existing commitments to address the escalating climate crisis.
Conversely, developed nations, including the UK, contended that existing climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, are sufficient and that no further legal obligations should be imposed.
On Wednesday, the court rejected this argument.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji further stated that failing to develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change would constitute a breach of commitments under the Paris Agreement.
He clarified that broader international law applies, meaning that countries not party to the Paris Agreement, or those seeking to withdraw, such as the US, remain obligated to protect the environment, including the climate system.
While the court’s opinion is advisory, past ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, exemplified by the UK’s agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.
“The ruling is a watershed legal moment,” asserted Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law.
“With today’s authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation,” she added.
The court affirmed the right of developing nations to seek damages for climate change impacts, such as the destruction of buildings and infrastructure.
It further noted that in cases where restoration of a part of a country is not feasible, the government may seek compensation.
This could pertain to specific extreme weather events, provided a causal link to climate change can be established, although the Judge emphasized that such determinations would require a case-by-case assessment.
The potential amount of damages payable by an individual country, should a claim be successful, remains unclear.
Previous analysis published in Nature estimated that climate change-related losses amounted to $2.8 trillion between 2000 and 2019, or $16 million per hour.
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.