Two international courts just issued major climate rulings. Here’s what that means. » Yale Climate Connections

In the past three weeks, two international courts have issued opinions that could provide a boost to those pushing for climate action through justice systems. 

At the beginning of July, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, headquartered in Costa Rica, declared that the planet is experiencing a climate emergency and that every person has the right to a healthy climate.

And on July 23, the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ highest court, said that nations must cut emissions to address the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change. 

Both opinions are advisory, which means they aren’t legally binding. In fact, the United States, a major climate polluter, does not recognize the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisdiction. 

But in future cases, judges may draw on the opinions as they interpret the law, and they might influence international negotiations. 

Inter-American Court establishes ‘climate due diligence’ 

The opinion by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights arose from a request by the governments of Chile and Colombia in 2023 to clarify the scope of each country’s responsibility to respond to climate change. The request to the court acknowledged the human rights effects of climate change, highlighting the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems in Latin America. In the request, Colombia and Chile “emphasized the need for regional standards to accelerate action to confront climate change.”

The governments of the two countries asked for clarification on the state’s obligations when it comes to preventing and confronting climate-caused emergencies, with a focus on the protection and guarantee of human rights. They also asked for clarification on which additional measures should be taken to protect the most vulnerable communities.

The court published its opinion after hearing testimony from scientists, activists, and people directly affected by climate change. These hearings were held in Barbados in the Caribbean and Brazil in South America. The court’s advisory opinion also highlighted the disproportionate impacts on women, members of the LGBTIQ+ community, the elderly, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable groups. It emphasized that states need to consider all people in their climate policies.

In its opinion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established three duties:

• Respect: Do not worsen global warming.
• Ensure: Protect the population from climate risks.
• Cooperate: Support those who have contributed the least to emissions but suffer the most from their impacts.

The opinion also introduced the concept of “climate due diligence”: Companies that generate high carbon emissions must identify, prevent, and repair damage, and the energy transition must not violate other human rights.

U.N. court says nations must comply with climate treaties 

The opinion issued July 23 by the International Court of Justice concluded that nations are legally obligated to address climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a global treaty drafted in 1992 and signed by most of the world’s countries, including the United States. 

The opinion resulted from a request by the U.N. General Assembly, which was responding to a yearslong campaign by law students from Pacific island nations, The New York Times reported. Many of those islands are in danger of going underwater as sea levels rise. 

Like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice examined the issue through a human rights lens, writing that “the protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights” and that “the Court considers that the adverse effects of climate change may impair the effective enjoyment of human rights.” 

What are the legal implications of these advisory opinions?

Although these advisory opinions might seem like great news for the climate, there’s no guarantee they will be used in cases related to alleged climate injustice. 

“There is no clear mechanism for these opinions, but the court often refers to them in contentious cases (brought by the commission or states),” said Dinah Shelton via email, referring to the earlier court opinion. Shelton is a lawyer and the former commissioner for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and investigates human rights violations. “And the court would likely refer to it in future cases, although technically there is no rule of precedents.” 

Marco Simons offered a similar perspective on the Inter-American Court’s opinion. Simons is a lawyer who has more than two decades of experience in environmental, human rights, and international law and is based in Washington, D.C.

The court’s opinions, he wrote via email, “do not have any binding legal authority – they are simply a statement of the court’s views on the interpretation of, and obligations flowing from, human rights instruments in the Americas.” He added, “So whether it will directly affect any country is open to debate.” 

But he said the opinion could provide support to similar arguments in national court systems or in other cases before the Inter-American system. 

Likewise, the nonbinding opinion by the International Court of Justice “nevertheless could have far-reaching influence on litigation in courts around the world as well as on international negotiations over climate policy and funding,” The New York Times reported. 

Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said of the International Court of Justice’s opinion, “I didn’t expect it to be this good,” Reuters reported. 

Sara Peach contributed reporting.