A recording of the programme is available to listen to here.

After more than two years of legal proceedings, the eagerly awaited climate report of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was read out on Wednesday afternoon. It was originally initiated by the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which is one of the most endangered regions in the world. Not only do extreme weather conditions such as tropical storms threaten the 83-island nation and its approximately 300,000 inhabitants, but also earthquakes and its location just above sea level.

In March 2023, the issue was put to a vote in the UN General Assembly. The body, in which all 193 UN member states are represented on an egalitarian basis, decided by consensus to refer the following questions to the International Court of Justice:

• What international legal obligation do states have to protect the climate?
• What are the consequences of a breach of the state’s duty to protect the climate?

Michael Lysander Fremuth summarised the key points of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate chang in the Ö1 Morgenjournal. According to Fremuth, this report is of considerable importance, even if it is not directly legally binding. It is now clear that all states are obliged under international law to protect the climate. In doing so, the ICJ recognised the 1.5°C warming target as a binding benchmark. Countries must work together to effectively achieve this goal through legislation and administrative procedures. At the same time, however, the professor of fundamental and human rights also pointed out potential obstacles. The standard of due diligence remains vague, for example. In addition, the liability of countries, especially large emitters such as the USA, Russia and China, would be limited by the fact that they are unlikely to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ in relevant proceedings. Hope therefore lies with national courts and international courts with binding jurisdiction, for which the advisory opinion is likely to have a signalling effect. Fremuth further emphasised that the ICJ had recognised and strengthened a human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and thus also the human rights component of climate protection.

‘It [the ICJ’s climate opinion] is, in a sense, grist to the mill for all those who want to use strategic legal action to enforce human rights and use human rights to combat climate change and its negative effects,’ said Fremuth, who believes that the ICJ’s findings could also inspire the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in an ongoing climate case against Austria.