A STATUTORY ORDER, NOT AN ADVISORY

The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that countries driving climate change are committing a crime against humanity reiterates the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It is likely to boost litigation related to climate reparations

- JAYANTA BASU, KIRAN PANDEY AND VIVEK MISHRA

IT IS an advisory that has implications of an abiding conviction. On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, passed an “advisory opinion” stating that government actions driving climate change are illegal and that countries should be held legally responsible for their emissions.

“The climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,” the world court said, because, climate change “imperils all forms of life”. Dire Tladi, one of the court’s 15 judges, said it was one of the most consequential matters ever brought before ICJ. “It is an existential crisis that potentially threatens the future of humanity,” Tladi said.

The first-ever ruling of ICJ on climate change traces its origin to a classroom discussion among 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific’s campus in Port Vila, the capital of Vanuatu, one of the world’s most climate vulnerable countries. In 2019, the students, grouped as the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, launched a campaign called “#ClimateICJAO”. The campaign seeks climate justice as “for too long, those most responsible for the climate crisis have ignored their obligations”.