(Commonwealth)_ In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a milestone Advisory Opinion on the responsibility of states in international law on climate change, which marked the shift in the global climate justice discourse. The Court’s decision reaffirmed that the world could no longer ignore the reimbursement of historical emissions and losses already experienced by vulnerable communities. The ruling states that harm brought about by climate change needs to be admitted and compensated, not as voluntary aid or charity but lawfully.
The opinion categorically states that the cessation of climate change is not a mere end to the wrongful act. It is a complete restitution for economic and environmental damages. Where restoration is impossible altogether because some climate forces have irreversible effects, the governments have no alternative but to suggest restoration and healing practices. Environment restoration, rebuilding of climate change-devastated infrastructures, and carbon sink resilience improvement are some of them. Where restoration is challenging, the Court laid stress on compensation even when environmental and economic harm is difficult to measure. Secondly, the Court recognized the doctrine of satisfaction as a sufficient method of reparation. Parts of the doctrine of satisfaction include official acceptance of responsibility, an official apology, and official public information campaigns to ensure that harm does not go unnoticed.
Protection against Displacement
The Court’s Opinion also highlighted the increasing phenomenon of climate displacement, still maintaining that international responsibility lay with the parties whose very existence was threatened by the risk of climate change. It relies on the doctrine of non-refoulement, which provides that states shall not push individuals into circumstances that would expose them to risk of death by virtue of the impact of climate. The acknowledgment is particularly significant to Pacific Island states, whose sea levels have risen and climate extremes have already pushed people out and placed them on the brink of being uninhabitable in the future.
The Court has also agreed that sea-level rise displacement will not end statehood and sovereignty. Land can be flooded and people relocated, but states can still make juridical claims of statehood, as well as rights over property in natural resources. Consideration is consistent with regional obligations, e.g., those of the Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration, and provides reassured confidence to countries whose very presence is endangered by climate change.
Climate as an International Common Benefit
At the forefront of them was the Court’s acknowledgment that the Earth’s climatic system constitutes an international common resource that must be protected and managed by all. The Advisory Opinion alone based itself on international cooperation regarding the area of climatic phenomena. It acknowledged states’ obligations to their citizens and the global community. Those duties, also referred to as erga omnes duties in law, stand above customary treaty obligations. In real-world application, that includes a customary international law duty not to cause significant transboundary harm by non-signatories to the Paris Agreement or other environmental agreements.
The Opinion also repeatedly emphasized that both affected and unaffected states can hold other states accountable for their inability to make their own equitable contribution towards preventing climate change. Expansion of responsibility makes assuming climate obligations global and a paradigm shift in perceiving harm to the climate as something global and not bilaterally or regionally oriented.
A Pacific-Led Milestone
Most notably, Pacific Island students spearheaded this success. They took the case to the world’s highest court and won a landmark ruling of binding legal duties to protect human rights and prevent damage to the climate. Their campaign is a valuable exemplary case of the efficacy of grass-roots campaigning in creating world law and refashioning global responsibility.
This victory is most relevant to the Pacific, where individuals are already experiencing sea-level rise, destroyed crops, and forced displacement. The Commonwealth has been working round-the-clock in helping Pacific nations face these challenges. In Fiji, for example, Commonwealth advisers have been assisting national governments in securing access to climate finance to support relocation efforts. Support has also included the development of Fiji’s first Loss and Damage proposal, which focused on assessing the impacts of climate-related losses on rice production. Such efforts reflect the practical application of the principles articulated by the ICJ, linking global legal obligations to the realities faced by communities on the frontlines of climate change.
