The vulnerable under protection. UN Supreme Court on responsibility for climate change

The International Court of Justice has ruled that failure to protect the climate can be considered a violation of international law. This gives the green light to countries that want to sue other states for damages caused by, among other things, greenhouse gas emissions. The decision is especially welcomed by small island nations in the Pacific.

PR or a breakthrough in the approach to climate change?

The decision made by the 15 judges of the UN Supreme Court is an advisory opinion. It does not mean that any changes to legal regulations will be introduced automatically. Nevertheless, experts are calling the opinion a turning point in international climate law.

It serves as a warning to states that do nothing – or too little – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or limit other environmentally harmful activities. The opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague will provide a legal basis for countries suffering from the effects of climate change. They will gain the opportunity to sue other states and accuse them of worsening living conditions for their citizens. This can be seen as a kind of equalizer between the wealthiest and the less privileged – not only symbolically, but also financially.

Taking up the issue of responsibility for failure to act on climate protection also sends a clear message to all stakeholders: inaction will be taken seriously. The UN Supreme Court emphasized that emitting, subsidizing, and licensing CO₂ can be considered unlawful acts of international significance.

Possible consequences – for whom, how, and when?

The opinion issued by the UN Supreme Court does not specify how one country might seek compensation from another for damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Nor does it determine how the environmental harm will be verified, how losses will be calculated, or on what basis they will be compensated. What is known, however, is who may be sued. From a legal standpoint, the opinion issued by the UN Supreme Court is binding even for countries that have not signed the Paris Agreement or – like the USA – intend to withdraw from it.

Experts emphasize that the decision should rather be viewed as a path that may lead to the introduction of more precise national and international regulations. This is only a starting point – the current situation is aptly summarized by the slogan seen on posters held by activists outside the International Court of Justice in The Hague:

The court has spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.

Hope for small island nations

The issue of responsibility for environmental damage has reached its conclusion at the UN Supreme Court. But it began on the other side of the globe – on the islands of Fiji. There, law students seeking to hold the world’s wealthiest countries accountable for climate change came up with the idea of initiating formal proceedings. The next steps were taken by the government of Vanuatu, which in 2023 asked the International Court of Justice for an opinion on whether there are legal grounds for states to bear consequences for climate change.

Tonight I will sleep easier. The UN’s highest court acknowledged what we have had to go through: our suffering, our resilience, and our right to a future – this is how Flora Vano, an environmental activist from Vanuatu, summarized the decision.

These small Pacific islands, including Vanuatu, are among the hardest hit by climate change. The rising sea level – one of its most serious effects – is already being keenly felt by local communities. Although the global average increase is 4.3 cm, sea levels in the Pacific Ocean region are rising much faster.