World Court backs climate-friendly pacts and laws

The general view is that the International Court of Justice at The Hague is an ineffective international institution because it cannot enforce its verdict. So, when the court said that it is incumbent on national governments to implement the Paris Agreement on climate of 2013 whereby greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) should be limited in such a way that the global temperature would be held below 1.5 Degrees Celsius of the pre-industrial era, it evoked amusement.

Not all countries submit themselves to the international court’s jurisdiction. And those that do are not bound to strictly follow the directives of the court. It is the view of experts that what the ICJ has said about the governments’ obligation to make policies and to penalize those contributing to the climate crisis will carry certain weight in terms of international agreements and customary international law.

The conventions of international law can be breached with impunity indeed, but the climate activists in many countries are going to cite the court’s verdict as a precedent in their legal battles in national courts. It is of course for the higher judiciary in different countries to take note of the ICJ’s directions on climate.

The court had implied that even those countries which had walked out of the Paris Agreement – the United States was not named but the implied reference was quite clear – had the binding power of an international agreement. The ICJ verdict will be used by climate litigants, both against governments and private sector players, for ignoring the environmental concerns and warnings.

Greenpeace Netherlands had been fighting a case in the ICJ, and it is based on its plea that the ICJ gave the verdict about taking note of the climate issues. Three countries – the United States, Saudi Arabia and Norway – had contested that national climate policies are not legally binding. The court did not agree.

It would be difficult for the higher judiciary in the national capitals to dismiss the views of ICJ as of no consequence or of no weight. The ICJ’s verdict may not be legally binding but it adds up to the legal evidence.

Climate change litigation is sporadic in various countries, and the case law is not developed enough. But it is going to gain ground in the coming years as national governments are bound to legislate on climate-related issues because they will affect the life and livelihoods of the people, and also the places they live in.

Private sector will indeed be resentful and it is likely to contest any legislation that restricts its profit-seeking ventures. Jonathan Martel of the US legal firm, Arnold and Porter, which fights cases for private industry on environmental issues, expressed apprehension that the ICJ’s verdict will raise issues.

He said, “This (the ICJ verdict) might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Many in the industrial sector recognize the dangers posed by climate change to their own enterprises. They see a future where their businesses stand ruined because of the extreme weather events caused by climate change. That is why, they are willing to invest in green technologies, switch to electricity and adopt climate change mitigation processes.

There are however a minority in the private sector who deny climate change and they are unwilling to take corrective action. It is to counter the prejudices of the few powerful tycoons, including US President Donald Trump. Majority of national governments are convinced that climate change is a serious issue and that policies will have to be put in place to face the challenge. It is the legal remedies that will support climate-friendly actions of governments.