ICJ advisory opinion on climate change: Camilla Haake on ‘Guten Morgen Österreich’ (ORF)
During the morning live show ‘Guten Morgen Österreich’, our colleague Camilla Haake discussed the potential implications of the recent ICJ advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change, especially for countries threatened by climate change and the outcome of currently pending court proceedings.
A recording of the programme is available here.
The initiative to refer states’ obligations with regard to climate change under international law to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) came from the small state of Vanuatu. With good reason: Due to the climate change-induced sea level rise, the territory of Vanuatu in the South Pacific is steadily submerging into the sea. Could the ICJ’s advisory opinion increase the chances of successful legal action by countries such as Vanuatu in future lawsuits? The defendants in such cases would be major emitters such as the United States, on the grounds of their violation of their international climate protection obligations and their contribution to climate change. However, since the advisory opinion is not legally binding, this question cannot be answered in general terms, according to Haake.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the court, with its clear statements on the interdependence of environmental and climate protection on the one hand and the protection of human rights on the other, has identified a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as the basis for the realisation of human rights. Haake went on to say that the ICJ described climate change as a ‘common concern of humankind,’ thereby emphasising the shared duty of the state community to cooperate in combating climate change and its negative effects.
The advisory opinion could also have an impact on the outcome of climate proceedings currently pending before regional and national courts worldwide. One example of such proceedings is the case of ‘Müllner v. Austria’, which is currently being heard before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. Haake emphasised that although the ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding, it cannot be ruled out that the ECHR will be inspired by the ICJ’s remarks in its decision. ‘The ICJ is not reinventing the wheel, but its remarks confirm and substantiate many points that have already been incorporated into decisions or advisory opinions of other regional or national courts,’ Haake summarised.
