A New Climate of Change or Just Hot Air?

The International Court of Justice says big greenhouse gas polluters must act on climate change. Whether they will listen is less clear.

- David Fogarty

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) turned the world of climate diplomacy and climate justice upside down.

In a 133-page advisory opinion, the ICJ made clear that all states—and the companies they regulate—have a legal obligation to prevent harms caused by climate change.

That means major polluting nations and companies are on the hook for the climate and environmental harms their fossil fuel emissions are causing globally.

They are also legally obliged to do everything they can to reduce that harm—or face legal and possibly financial consequences.

It is the first time the world's highest court has authoritatively set out the legal duties of states in relation to climate change and the laws that apply to global warming.

The court said the failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions—such as through fossil fuel production and consumption, as well as granting exploration licenses and subsidies—may constitute an internationally wrongful act.

The world's poorest and most vulnerable nations now feel this ruling gives them more bargaining power in negotiations with big polluters.

"The ruling cements the Global South's leadership in shaping international climate law and puts petrostates and fossil fuel expansion on notice," said Ms Maria Alejandra Vesga Correa, legal officer at Oil Change International, a research and advocacy group.

But as significant as the ICJ ruling is, the optimism needs to be tempered with a large dose of realism.

Will big polluters pay heed to what the court said? What happens if they don't?

MIXED RECORD

ICJ opinions have a mixed record of success.

Some past decisions have been ignored and the court itself cannot punish states that fail to abide by its rulings.