Earthjustice Response to International Court of Justice Opinion on Climate Change

Today, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest court, issued an opinion stating that all governments — including the United States — have an obligation to protect present and future generations from climate change harms caused by burning fossil fuels within and beyond their borders. Therefore, countries must take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and act with heightened vigilance to enforce these measures.

Sam Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs at Earthjustice, issued the following statement in response:

“Every nation on Earth is already experiencing the impacts of a rapidly warming climate, and the worst is yet to come. The ICJ’s opinion is a stern warning to governments around the world, but nobody will be listening in the White House. That’s because the Trump administration’s approach to addressing climate change is to deny that it is happening, including by undoing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘endangerment finding.’ It’s terribly sad that at the very same time the rest of the world is moving forward, the Trump administration is trying to take the United States backward.”

For nearly three decades, Earthjustice has argued for recognition of the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment, a principle reinforced in today’s Advisory Opinion.

Earthjustice’s United Nations Representative Yves Lador issued the following statement:

“The ICJ’s opinion reinforces the link between international human rights law and climate protection. This is a strong admonishment to all nations of the world that action on climate is not discretionary — the right to a healthy environment includes the right to a healthy climate.”

Background

The request for an advisory opinion was led by the Pacific Small Island States and the world’s youth, supported by 132 countries, and provides a powerful new tool to help protect people from the growing human rights and environmental impacts of the climate crisis.

Significant takeaways from the ruling include:

• Countries have binding obligations under international law to combat climate change — not only under climate treaties (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement), but also under human rights law, the law of the sea, and customary international law. In other words, no country including the U.S. can avoid its obligations to drastically reduce GHG emissions simply by pulling out of the Paris Agreement.
• Countries have a customary legal duty to prevent their conduct from causing climate harm both within their borders and outside of their borders and are responsible for the climate harm caused by corporations and other polluters under their jurisdiction or control.
• Appropriate rules and measures that governments should take include passing regulations designed to achieve the deep, rapid, and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.
• Countries can be held accountable if they fail to take action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including emissions attributable to fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies.
• The court affirmed that the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights and includes a right to a healthy climate.