The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue the first-ever advisory opinion on climate change and human rights. This was a significant diplomatic victory for a Pacific nation that is particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis.
The resolution, supported by Vanuatu, will ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to specify for the world’s governments what they are required to do in accordance with international law to safeguard the environment and human rights from the effects of destroying forests and burning fossil fuels.
Ishmael Kalsakau, the prime minister of Vanuatu, declared in a video statement that “today we have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions.”
A new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding international law and one that prioritizes intergenerational equality and human rights, is seen as beginning with today’s historic agreement, according to Vanuatu.
Vanuatu is already dealing with the effects of the climate issue because it is an island country. Two Category 4 tropical cyclones struck the nation just this month, five days apart, according to a statement the Vanuatu government shared with EcoWatch. More than half of the nation’s annual GDP will likely be spent on responding to the extreme weather event.
Read More: John Molner Illness: What Illnesses Does John Molner Have?
Nonetheless, its government and people have taken the initiative to press for strong climate action, as well as to support a call for a treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels. According to a statement from the Climate Action Network (CAN), Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), a group of students who first spoke in a Vanuatu law school classroom, had the idea for the ICJ resolution.
According to the organization’s website, the PISFCC was founded in March 2019 by 27 USP [University of South Pacific] law students from 8 Pacific Island nations who came together to launch a campaign to persuade the Pacific Island Forum’s leaders to bring the issue of climate change and human rights before the International Court of Justice.
Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Germany, Liechtenstein, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Uganda, and Vietnam joined Vanuatu in appealing in September 2021. Before its unanimous passage on Wednesday, the resolution had the support of more than 120 other nations, according to CAN. The judgment will be the first time the ICJ has taken climate catastrophe into account.
Read More: Tim Curry Illness: Nine Years After His Stroke, He Is Still in A Wheelchair
PISFCC tweeted in response to the announcement, “Thank you to everyone who joined us on our quest to take the world’s worst problem from a classroom in the Pacific to the world’s highest court.
The resolution, Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the responsibility of States in relation to climate change, requests clarification on two important issues from the court:
- What does international law obligate nations to do to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions?
- What would the consequences be under international law for nations that harm the climate and therefore also harm either vulnerable countries or individuals now and in the future?
The advisory opinion would not be legally enforceable, but it might give international climate negotiations more clout and help those suing countries or corporations for climate-related damages.
Read More: Jimmy Buffett Illness: What Hospitalized Jimmy Buffett in 2022?
CAN Europe climate governance and human rights policy expert Romain Didi says in a statement provided to EcoWatch that the number of climate lawsuits is surging in Europe right now and that an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice could lead to even more cases as well as carry weight and aid national and European courts’ deliberations when deciding on climate change cases?
