The United Nations apex court on Wednesday announced that countries have a responsibility to combat climate change – and failure to do so may be a violation of international law.
Judges adopted in International Court of Justice (ICJ)Advisory opinionOn this subject, which emphasized the “duties” of the states to “use all means at its disposal to reduce the environmental loss.
Rai tasked governments to cooperate in this mission, given that “a violation by a violation by the status of any obligations” identified in the advisor “forms an internationally wrong Act.”
Possible consequences of such violations may include “complete re -evaluation to injured states such as” restoration, compensation and satisfaction “, stated in the document.
InCommentPrior to reading Rai, ICJ President Yaji Ivaswa stressed that the climate question raised in the proceedings represents more than a legal problem. “
“They worry about an existence problem of planetary ratio that affects all forms of life and a lot of health of our planet,” Ivaswa said.
According to the United Nations, the judges unanimously supported their non-comprehensive opinion, which the body has done so in its 80-year history.
The advisor ruling the years of lobbying from the island nations, arguing that they were at mercy of the rise of climate-inspired sea level. The United Nations General Assembly decided to ask the ICJ for its advisory opinion in 2023, which was in a case under the leadership of the Prashant Island nation of Vanuatu.
Ivaswa said on Wednesday, “International law, which has been implemented by the General Assembly, is an important but finally limited role in solving this problem.”
He said, “This challenging and self-inspired problem requires the contribution of all areas of human knowledge for a complete solution,” he said.
While the advisory opinion emphasizes the responsibility of nations to work with proper hard work to deal with climate change, it also believes that those duties are “differentiated” among countries.
When taken as a whole, however, these efforts should be collectively contributed to limiting global warming to 1.5 ° C, as in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, agreed according to opinion.
At a press conference after the delivery of ICJ, Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenwanu not only expressed satisfaction with the opinion, but also with the fact that it was unanimous.
“It really points to the important nature of this issue, and is also the consensus of most people in the world that we really need to address as urgency,” said Regenwanu.
Describing the ruling as a “historical moment”, the minister said that “evidence is clear, and we can see it everywhere, that climate change is affecting everyone, worldwide.”
A regional government agency – a regional government agency at Ilan Kg – Vanuatu of the Melansian Spearhead Group Secretariat said that the residents of the region have already faced “forcible transfer” and “lost a lot that defines us as the Pacific Islands.”
“And climate change has only begun,” the kilo said.
Vishal Prasad, the campaign director of Pacific Island students who fought climate change, told Rai “a lifeline and the opportunity to save all what we love.”
He said, “This decision is a will for the resolve of the people everywhere, which are in the front lines, who selected not to allow the decisions of the minority of the countries to determine the future of the global majority,” he said.
ICJ’s opinion, Prasad said, provides a foundation for a more durable and equitable future building.
As far as wrongdoings and revaluation are concerned, the Attorney Margarga Wevernke-Singh said that they believe “the court has made it clear” that the injured states can now increase a “full range of defense” against pollutants.
“This really strengthens the legal basis for such claims,” said Wevernke-Sing, an international lawyer of Blue Ocean Law, “
He hoped that many polluting states would now like to voluntarily pay re -evaluation rather than engaged in litigation.
Responding to questions about the United States, a prominent pollutant who does not recognize the legal rights of the ICJ, Wavernke-Singh said that as a member of the United Nations, the US, however, accepts the court advisory ceremony.
Since the United Nations General Assembly, including the United States, requested ICJ’s opinion, the US has “followed this advice” as long as it is part of the United Nations, it explained.
After the ruling, Regenwanu -Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister – said that the next steps would include taking the ICJ back to the General Assembly and pursuing a proposal to support its implementation.
“We expect to determine a new situation and provide the structural changes necessary to give our current and future generations to give hope for a healthy planet and a permanent future,” said Regenwanu.
The minister said, “This is the moment when we see a change and the world changes its face towards climate justice, and this legal clarity gives us moral courage to take it forward,” the minister said.
