On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous landmark ruling tightening regulations on one of the environment’s most dangerous enemies: greenhouse gases. According to its press release, the Netherlands-based ICJ, which functions as the judicial branch of the United Nations, found that states possess “obligations” to “ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
These “obligations” harken to a range of universalized environmental agreements and treaties created over the past few decades, including the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol and the Biodiversity Convention. The U.N. has long been an international leader in climate action, even as the issue of environmental protection divides world leaders and fractures national alliances. Alongside its commitment to the environment, the United Nations’ strong stance on protecting human rights influenced its decision: per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), nations are required to protect the basic rights of their people, and a sustainable environment “is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights.”
As massive as the global implications of the ICJ’s ruling are – U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres proclaimed it a “victory for our planet” – the sweeping scope of the decision raises questions about how effectively it can actually be enforced. The ICJ promises severe legal consequences for any state which commits an “internationally wrongful act” by breaching climate law, and it asserts that although climate change is cumulative, it is “scientifically possible” to determine how much each nation has contributed to global greenhouse gas emissions. However, the ICJ also notes that it “cannot…specify precisely what consequences are entailed” by the breaching of international climate law, as consequences must be unique to each particular offense.
However, the ICJ compensates for this uncertainty by removing nearly every loophole that uncooperative states have previously used to wriggle out of their climate obligations. Fossil fuel production and consumption, it rules, must be phased out unconditionally, and nations must use every resource at their disposal to ensure compliance with international climate law.
So, what does this ruling mean for the future of environmental litigation and climate change prevention? On an international level, the existing regulations set for nations that have signed along to treaties like the Paris Agreement promises a new era of climate cooperation and emissions mitigation. For the United States, however, the ICJ decision might not have the intended chilling effect on fossil fuel consumption as it may for other powerful nations.
Although former U.S. President Joe Biden committed the country to the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump made a dramatic exit from the treaty in January. This move, a repeat from his first term, leaves the US in a fickle position with the ICJ. Since the ICJ has established a new standard of legal liability for the Paris Agreement, its potential new status as a legally binding document would mean that the U.S. Senate would need to approve a re-signing. The Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to approve this measure – which, if passed, would send shockwaves through the oil economy. And even under Democratic leadership, it is possible that the U.S. may no longer have the legislative support to enter the Paris Agreement once again.
As the consequences of the ICJ’s decision unfold, the United Nations is sure to keep a close eye on high-polluting countries like the United States. How Trump and the Republicans will respond to this new wave of climate vigilance is unclear, but one thing is certain: a huge shift in international policy is imminent, and so is, hopefully, a greener world.