Climate Justice: A New Era

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

World Court Declares Climate an Existential Threat

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion, declaring climate change an “existential threat” to humanity (earth.org). This powerful statement from the world’s top court signals a major shift in how international law views environmental responsibility. ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa emphasized that this case was unlike any other, calling it “a concern of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet” (climatechangenews.com). This means the court sees climate change not just as an environmental issue, but as a fundamental threat to our very existence.

In the context of climate change, an “existential threat” means a danger so severe that it puts the continued existence or well-being of life, societies, or entire ecosystems at risk. The ICJ’s ruling confirms that countries have legal duties to act on climate change, rooted in international law, human rights law, and the responsibility to protect the environment (climatechangenews.com). This opinion marks the end of an era where countries could freely decide their climate policies. Instead, it ushers in a new period of accountability, where nations can be held responsible for excessive emissions and past failures to address the crisis (climatechangenews.com).

Beyond Existing Climate Agreements

A crucial aspect of the ICJ’s ruling is its assertion that states’ responsibilities are not limited to existing United Nations climate agreements. The court stated that failing to meet these duties could be considered an “internationally wrongful act” (climatechangenews.com). This is significant because high-emitting countries, such as the United States and China, had argued that international climate accords, like the 2015 Paris Agreement, should be the sole determinant of governments’ obligations (climatechangenews.com).

However, the ICJ judges disagreed, ruling that states’ responsibilities to protect the climate extend beyond their commitments under UN climate agreements (climatechangenews.com). The court concluded that international laws require states to reduce emissions, prevent harm, and work together to protect vulnerable populations (earth.org). This means that even if a country meets its specific targets under the Paris Agreement, it could still be held accountable under broader international law if its actions or inactions cause significant climate harm.

Understanding International Legal Obligations

The ICJ’s advisory opinion outlines specific obligations for states under various international laws and treaties, including climate conventions, humanitarian law, and customary international law. The court considered the entire body of international law, including the UN Charter, climate change treaties (like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement), other environmental treaties, and international human rights law (earth.org). This comprehensive approach means that states’ climate responsibilities are deeply embedded in the global legal framework.

Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, states must adopt measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change, as well as cooperate with each other (reuters.com). Parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence, considering their common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, to achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature goal (reuters.com). They must also prepare and maintain successive and progressive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are climate action plans outlining their efforts to reduce national emissions and adapt to climate impacts. While NDCs are central to the Paris Agreement, the ICJ’s ruling implies that states’ climate obligations extend beyond these voluntary contributions, encompassing broader duties under international law to prevent harm and protect the climate system.

What is Customary International Law?

Customary International Law: This refers to international obligations that arise from the general and consistent practice of states, followed by them out of a sense of legal obligation. It is unwritten law that develops from the consistent and widespread behavior of states, combined with their belief that such behavior is legally required. The ICJ’s opinion suggests that states’ obligations to address climate change are not only based on treaties but also on these established practices and principles of international law.

Furthermore, customary international law imposes obligations on states to protect the climate system from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. This includes a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and to cooperate in good faith (earth.org). States also have obligations under international human rights law to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment (earth.org). These various legal frameworks work together to create a comprehensive duty for states to protect the environment and human well-being from climate-related harm.

Implications for Climate Litigation and Accountability

The ICJ’s ruling has profound implications for climate litigation and accountability, providing a strong legal foundation for vulnerable nations to seek compensation and hold high-emitting countries responsible. The opinion “opens door to compensation from countries responsible for climate crisis” (climatechangenews.com). This is a significant development for communities, particularly those in the African Diaspora and other marginalized groups, who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing the least to the problem.

Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, stated that “governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities” (climatechangenews.com). This sentiment resonates deeply within communities that have been advocating for climate justice for years. Climate-related litigation has already intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (reuters.com). The ICJ’s opinion will undoubtedly fuel more of these cases, providing a powerful legal precedent for those seeking justice.

An “internationally wrongful act” refers to an act or omission by a state that breaches an international obligation. In the context of this ruling, it means that if a state fails to fulfill its legal obligations to protect the climate, such inaction or harmful action could be considered a violation of international law, potentially leading to state responsibility and consequences (climatechangenews.com). This concept opens the door for legal claims against states for climate-related damages, offering a new avenue for justice for those most affected.

Enforcement and Accountability

While ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as judgments in contentious cases, they carry significant legal weight and moral authority. They can influence the development of international law, guide national courts, and pressure states to align their policies with international obligations (climatechangenews.com). The opinion provides a strong legal basis for future climate litigation and can be used by civil society, vulnerable nations, and even domestic courts to hold governments accountable.

ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa expressed hope that the opinion’s conclusions “will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to solve the ongoing climate crisis” (climatechangenews.com). If states are found responsible for “internationally wrongful acts” due to excessive emissions or failure to act on climate change, potential legal consequences could include obligations to cease the wrongful act, provide assurances that it will not happen again, and offer reparations for the injury caused (earth.org). Reparations can take various forms, including restitution (restoring the injured party to the situation before the wrongful act), compensation for damages (financial payment for losses), and satisfaction (acknowledgment of the breach, apology, etc.). The ICJ’s opinion explicitly states that states are legally bound to cut their emissions and compensate vulnerable nations for the harm they have caused (earth.org).

Impact on Vulnerable Populations and Social Justice

The ICJ’s ruling is particularly significant for vulnerable populations, including many in the African Diaspora, who disproportionately suffer from the impacts of climate change. These communities often face environmental racism, where polluting industries are located near their neighborhoods, and they have fewer resources to adapt to extreme weather events or rising sea levels. The ruling’s emphasis on states’ obligations to protect vulnerable populations under international human rights law provides a powerful tool for advocating for climate justice.

While the ruling does not explicitly define who these vulnerable groups are, it implicitly includes those who are most susceptible to climate impacts due to geographic location, economic disadvantage, or historical injustices. This means that African American communities, Indigenous peoples, and low-income communities globally, who are often on the front lines of climate change, now have stronger legal grounds to demand protection and compensation. The opinion can be cited in domestic court cases, such as those in Brazil, even if it does not directly allow for suing the United States (reuters.com; cbsnews.com). This opens new avenues for local communities to seek redress and hold their governments accountable for climate inaction or harmful policies.

The ruling also highlights the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning that while all states have a shared responsibility to address climate change, their specific obligations may vary based on their historical contributions to emissions and their capacity to act. This principle is crucial for ensuring that the burden of climate action does not fall disproportionately on developing nations or those with fewer resources, many of which are in the Global South and have large African Diaspora populations.

Looking Ahead: A Call to Action

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is a powerful legal tool that can be leveraged by activists, lawyers, and communities worldwide to push for more ambitious climate action and greater accountability from states. It reinforces the idea that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but a matter of human rights and international justice. For African American communities and others in the diaspora, this ruling provides renewed hope and a stronger legal foundation for their ongoing fight for environmental justice.

The path forward will require sustained effort and collaboration. While the opinion is not binding, its moral and legal authority is undeniable. It empowers those who have been most impacted by climate change to demand that their governments fulfill their legal obligations to protect the planet and its people. This is a call to action for all of us to continue advocating for policies that prioritize climate justice, ensuring that the transition to a sustainable future is equitable and inclusive for everyone.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.