<p class="bodytext">The declaration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that governments are legally liable for greenhouse gas emissions is an important step forward in the movement against climate change. Though not binding and at best an advisory, the declaration brings clarity to legal positions that have been disputed and have remained varied across nations. By ruling that climate action is not just a policy imperative but a duty under international law, the court may have strengthened the developing countries’ demand for equitable climate justice. The ICJ ruling covers the obligation to limit global warming to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. It prescribed that the wealthy, industrialised nations listed in Annexe I of the UNFCCC must take the lead in emission reduction programmes and support developing countries through technological and financial assistance. The court said failure to meet these obligations would amount to an “internationally wrongful act” with legal consequences.</p>.Indian cities need $2.4 trillion for climate infrastructure by 2050, World Bank says.<p class="bodytext">The ruling is based on last year’s declaration of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that rich nations had a duty to reduce emissions faster than developing countries, and the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights this month that a stable climate is a human right. The “wrongful acts” mentioned in the judgement would include the grant of exploration and extraction licences for the coal, oil, and gas industries, and the legal consequences could include liability for full reparations to nations affected by climate-related disasters. Countries could also be held accountable for the actions of private businesses that failed to exercise due diligence or to implement regulatory or legislative measures. The ruling will enable countries to approach the ICJ for the enforcement of mutual accountability. It will also encourage climate activists to file lawsuits against their own countries for not adhering to the ruling.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The UN General Assembly had sought the opinion of the ICJ, following advocacy by the most vulnerable countries. The Pacific nation of Vanuatu, which has a population of 2.3 lakh, led the efforts with support from over 130 countries. The ICJ studied over 150 submissions, and over 100 countries and international organisations appeared for the hearings. There has been a spurt in climate litigation all over the world, and the ICJ ruling could be considered significant in that context. While the ruling is important, the moot question is what impact it will have. The US is out of all climate negotiations, and many European countries feel that they have done their best with their Paris Agreement commitments. The ruling was unanimously made by all 15 members of the ICJ, but the responses to it are bound to be varied.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The declaration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that governments are legally liable for greenhouse gas emissions is an important step forward in the movement against climate change. Though not binding and at best an advisory, the declaration brings clarity to legal positions that have been disputed and have remained varied across nations. By ruling that climate action is not just a policy imperative but a duty under international law, the court may have strengthened the developing countries’ demand for equitable climate justice. The ICJ ruling covers the obligation to limit global warming to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. It prescribed that the wealthy, industrialised nations listed in Annexe I of the UNFCCC must take the lead in emission reduction programmes and support developing countries through technological and financial assistance. The court said failure to meet these obligations would amount to an “internationally wrongful act” with legal consequences.</p>.Indian cities need $2.4 trillion for climate infrastructure by 2050, World Bank says.<p class="bodytext">The ruling is based on last year’s declaration of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that rich nations had a duty to reduce emissions faster than developing countries, and the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights this month that a stable climate is a human right. The “wrongful acts” mentioned in the judgement would include the grant of exploration and extraction licences for the coal, oil, and gas industries, and the legal consequences could include liability for full reparations to nations affected by climate-related disasters. Countries could also be held accountable for the actions of private businesses that failed to exercise due diligence or to implement regulatory or legislative measures. The ruling will enable countries to approach the ICJ for the enforcement of mutual accountability. It will also encourage climate activists to file lawsuits against their own countries for not adhering to the ruling.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The UN General Assembly had sought the opinion of the ICJ, following advocacy by the most vulnerable countries. The Pacific nation of Vanuatu, which has a population of 2.3 lakh, led the efforts with support from over 130 countries. The ICJ studied over 150 submissions, and over 100 countries and international organisations appeared for the hearings. There has been a spurt in climate litigation all over the world, and the ICJ ruling could be considered significant in that context. While the ruling is important, the moot question is what impact it will have. The US is out of all climate negotiations, and many European countries feel that they have done their best with their Paris Agreement commitments. The ruling was unanimously made by all 15 members of the ICJ, but the responses to it are bound to be varied.</p>
