Two international courts issued advisory opinions on the obligations of states to respond to climate change. On July 3, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published an opinion finding that States have an obligation to mitigate climate change through policies and actions. Then, on the 25th, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a similar ruling in long-running litigation, finding that populations harmed by climate change may be entitled to reparations. A recent memo from Linklaters discusses the key takeaways from the Inter-American Court decision:
- “The Court affirmed the right to a healthy environment, stating this includes the right to a stable and healthy climate.
- States have an obligation to adopt necessary effective measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage to the environment (including climate change) and to prevent connected human rights impacts.
- To prevent and mitigate climate risks, States must adopt a standard of enhanced due diligence based on scientific evidence.
- States have specific duties to prevent harm and ensure the protection of vulnerable groups, who might face disproportionately severe impacts from climate change.
- Finally, the Court emphasises the role businesses must play in addressing the climate emergency and places a duty on States to regulate companies’ actions to avoid human rights abuses arising out of dangerous climate change.”
Additionally, a ClientEarth statement reviews key findings from the ICJ opinion:
- “If governments and parliaments fail to curb the production and consumption of fossil fuels, approve fossil fuel projects and roll out public money for fossil fuels, they could be in breach of international law.
- Historical emitters (i.e. countries who have burned the most fossil fuels for the longest periods of time) have a greater responsibility to address the climate crisis and limit global warming to 1.5 °C.
- Countries are bound by international law to regulate companies and businesses’ climate impacts.
- A healthy environment is the foundation for human life and human rights protected by international law.
- There is a potential route to reparations for states enduring the worst of the climate crisis to hold historical emitters to account.”
Both of these decisions are advisory opinions and are non-binding, however.
Even so, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the highest human rights court in the Americas and exists to interpret the American Convention of Human Rights (a convention the United States is not party to). Additionally, the ICJ is the UN’s highest court. The high-profile nature of these cases and the status of these courts contribute significantly to international norms surrounding climate liability and mitigation requirements. These norms can shape international law and even influence countries that are not signatories to major international treaties. These decisions, taken together with the International Law of the Sea’s ruling last year, are setting the baseline for how international courts view climate change law.]
Our members can find out more about ESG litigation here.
DID YOU KNOW … we are much more than just blogs. PracticalESG provides tools and guidance for in house staff and outside advisors – from beginners to senior practitioners. We scour third party resources, vetting and filtering them – saving you hours of your day. And we don’t use AI to produce any content or have annoying ads.
If you’re not already a member, sign up now and take advantage of our no-risk “100-Day Promise” – during the first 100 days as an activated member, you may cancel for any reason and receive a full refund. But it will probably pay for itself before then.
Are you a client of one of our Partners – SourceIntelligence, Kumi, Ecolumix, Elm Consulting Group International or Impakt IQ? Contact them for exclusive pricing packages for PracticalESG.
Practical Guidance for Companies, Curated for Clarity.
Sign up here for daily blog updates delivered right to you.