Landmark ICJ’s decision on climate change: Inaction by nations is illegal; Resurgence is possible

The United Nations top court has said that inactivity on climate change may be illegal. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said on Wednesday that the country can violate international law if they fail to take meaningful steps to protect the climate. It also opened the door for re -evaluation in affected countries already from the crisis. Court President Yaji Ivaswa called the climate emergency “a problem related to the ratio of planets” and warned that ignoring it could lead to the amount of “wrongdoing” under international law. Activists celebrated outside the court. The case was led by the Prashant Island nation of Vanuatu and was supported by more than 130 countries. Following the years of pressure on the weaker island states, the United Nations General Assembly asked ICJ to give its opinion in 2023. A panel of 15 judges answered two major questions: What states are required to do legally to protect the environment, and what happens if they do not do? The opinion of the court, longer than the 500 pages, stated that each person has the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. It is a human right. The statement alone can be used in domestic and international courts. Experts say that it can shape future cases, investment treaties and even climate policies.The Attorney General of Vanuatu reminded the judges that his people’s existence was at stake. In some parts of the Pacific, the sea level was growing faster than the global average. Global temperatures have already increased by 1.3 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial time.

Some countries like the US and Russia have opposed the cuts in emissions inspired by any court. But ICJ’s opinion combines increasing legal pressure. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that countries should avoid environmental damage and restore damaged ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights made a similar call. In 2019, the Dutch became the first person to connect the Supreme Court climate change and human rights, the government should be ruling to protect the citizens from its effects. Although the ICJ is not legally binding, it marks a significant change in climate law. The court itself admitted that the law could not solve the crisis alone, but said that it plays a “important” role in shaping global responsibility.