Climate justice isn't just hot air

Last week's advisory on climate change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) marks an extraordinary moment in the 30-plus years of international climate negotiations. Though non-binding, it provides courts the basis to hold states accountable for weak climate action, and for developing countries and vulnerable communities to seek justice and financial support.

States have concrete legal obligations grounded in existing treaties, human rights law and long-standing legal principles to protect the climate system. It is bigger than the Paris Agreement. It is not an aspirational goal but legal obligation, requiring governments to take meaningful action to prevent harm to the environment, work together to reduce emissions, and protect people from climate impacts. It connects to international human rights law - escalating impacts of climate change such as rising seas, deadly heat, water scarcity and food insecurity that pose a threat to fundamental rights. This reframing is critical, making climate inaction not just policy failure but legal breach. Governments are responsible for all actions within their jurisdiction. This will likely lead to repositioning protection of climate systems in policymaking. It also reaffirms the role of science in guiding legal accountability.

The advisory provided on the basis of the 2023 UN General Assembly resolution is the culmination of efforts by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation, to find answers for years of slow climate action and unfulfilled promises. It reaffirms centrality of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. While it points out that 'developing' is not a static category, it's clear that developed states must take the lead.