The best UN Court states that countries can sue each other for climate change

The landmark decision of the UN Supreme Court has released the way for countries that will sue climate change, including the historical gas emissions that warm the planets.

But the Judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands on Wednesday, said he would be unraveling, which caused which part of the climate change could be difficult.

The ruling does not oblige, but legal experts say they may have great consequences.

This will be regarded as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change that have come to court, feeling disappointed with the lack of global progress in solving the problem.

An unprecedented case in the International Court of Justice (CU) became the children of the group of young students from the lowland Pacific Islands on the fronts of climate change that came up with the idea in 2019.

One of these students, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga, was in The Hague to hear the decision.

“I am lost for words. It’s so interesting. There are a lot of emotions that are racing through us. It’s a win, we proudly return home to our communities,” he said BBC News.

“Tonight I will sleep easier. The CU admitted that we survived – our suffering, our sustainability and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano from the Pacific Ocean Vanuat, which is considered to be the most vulnerable to the extreme weather in the world.

“It is a victory not only for us, but also for every front community that will be heard.”

The CU is considered the highest court in the world and has global jurisdiction. Lawyers said BBC News that the opinion could be used next week, including in national courts outside the CU.

Climate shareholders and lawyers hope that a landmark decision will now open the way to compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and therefore most responsible for global warming.

Many poor countries have supported the case of disappointment, claiming that developed states do not fulfill the existing promises to solve an increasing problem.

But developed countries, including the UK, claimed that existing climatic agreements, including a landed UN Parisian transaction in 2015, and further legal obligations should not be introduced.

On Wednesday, the court rejected this argument.

Judge Ivasov Yuji also stated that if the countries do not develop the most ambitious climate change plans, it would be a violation of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He added that a broader international law is applied, meaning that countries that are not signed in the Paris agreement – or want to leave as the United States – still requires environmental protection, including the climatic system.

The court’s opinion is advisory, but the preliminary decisions of the ICD were implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to return the Mauritian Islands last year.

“The ruling is a turning point,” said Joy Chaudhur, senior prosecutor of the International Environmental Law Center (CIL).

“Thanks to today’s reputable historical ruling, the International Court has crashed with a common business and made a historical statement: those who suffer from climatic destruction have the right to correction of climate damage, including through compensation,” she added.

A press secretary of the Foreign Department, Commonwealth and Development of the UK said it “takes time” to look at the opinion before commenting on detail but added:

“The case of climate change – this will remain an urgent UK and global priority. Our position remains that this is best achieved by an international commitment to existing climatic treaties and mechanisms.”

The court ruled that developing countries have the right to seek losses for the impact of climatic changes, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

It adds that where it is impossible to restore part of the country, its government may want to refer to compensation.

This may be for specific extreme weather if you can prove that climate change caused this, but the judge said it would need to be determined in a particular case.

“This is a huge victory for the climatic vulnerable states. It is a huge victory for the Vanuat, which has led to this case and is going to change the appearance of the climate,” said Jennifer Robinson’s lawyer in Dauti -Storyber, who represented Vanuat and Marshal Islands.

It is unclear how much the country can pay if some claim was successful.

But the previous analysis, published in nature, estimated that 2.8 trillion was from 2000 to 2019. Dollars – or $ 16 million per hour.

During the evidence in December, the court heard dozens of the Pacific Islands, which were moved as a result of the sea level, caused by climate change.

Marshall’s islands emphasized that the cost of their island to adapt to climate change is $ 9 billion.

“This is $ 9 billion, there is no Marshall. Climate change is a problem that they have not caused, but they are forced to consider relocating their capital,” Mr. Robinson said.

In addition to compensation, the court also ruled that governments are responsible for the influence of the climate of companies operating in their countries.

It states that in particular, the subsidization of fossil fuel industry or the approval of new oil and gas licenses may violate the country’s obligations.

According to the BBC lawyers, with whom the BBC stated that developing countries are already studying new cases, seeking compensation for the historical contribution to climate change regarding the richer, high nations referring to the CU’s opinion.

If the country wants to return the case to the CU to make a resolution on compensation, then it can only do so against the countries that have agreed with its jurisdiction, which includes similar UK, but not us nor China.

But the case can be brought to any court around the world, whether it is an internal or international, citing the CU disc, explained Joie Chowdhury with Ciel.

Therefore, instead, the country can choose its case not in the CU, but to court where these countries are connected with federal courts, such as the US.

But the question remains whether the CU’s opinion will be.

“(CU) is an institution that is subject to geopolitics – and it relies on the states that adhere to its court decisions, he has no police,” said Harge Narula, a climate lawyer in Dauli -Strit -chebers, who also represented the Solomon Islands.

When asked about the decision of the White House press secretary, BBC News told:

“As always, President Trump and the whole administration seek to put America first and prioritize the interests of everyday Americans.”