The Environmental Law Initiative says the International Court of Justice’s landmark ruling will usher in a new era of accountability for states, including Aotearoa New Zealand, to deliver on their climate change commitments.

In it’s advisory opinion, the world’s highest court ruled that states are legally obligated to halt the production and use of fossil fuels, and those that fail to prevent climate harm could be held liable for reparations. The Court also underscored that states must meet their obligations under human rights law, customary international law and other treaties, beyond just the Paris agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“This ruling is an incredibly significant development, which will open new avenues for accountability, including climate litigation through domestic, regional and international courts," says ELI’s Director, Research and Legal, Dr Matt Hall.

“It will inevitably have bearing on both New Zealand policy making and global negotiations.

“It dispels the argument that small states like New Zealand are too small to matter. It’s clear, we have obligations, and we need to deliver on them.”

The ruling, made early Thursday morning in the Hague, followed a request spearheaded by Vanuatu, other Pacific Island nations, climate-vulnerable countries, and youth campaigners worldwide.

The Court’s ruling has been heralded for bringing clarity to the obligations of states in regard to fossil fuels:

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

“Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.”

The Court’s advisory opinion is extensive, covering areas including climate mitigation, adaptation, remedies for climate damage, and human rights.

It highlights the responsibility of states to put in place regulatory and legislative measures to limit corporate emissions. The ruling also says that the adverse effects of climate change may impair the enjoyment of the right to life which is enshrined in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Advisory opinions are authoritative interpretations of binding international law and hold significant legal influence.

© Scoop Media