Copyright orissapost
By Francesca Mascha Klein & Laura Schäfer Amid rising geopolitical tensions, pressure to comply with climate obligations increasingly comes from courts. Earlier this year, both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued landmark advisory opinions affirming that countries must address climate change and that failure to do so may carry serious legal consequences. This renewed legal clarity comes at a critical moment. Last year was the hottest on record, with global average temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Yet the gulf between the urgency of the climate threat and the policy response continues to widen. In the absence of political will, the legal system has become a key driver of climate progress. As COP30 in Brazil approaches, the groundwork has been laid for stronger, fairer, and more accountable climate action. The most immediate implication of the ICJ and IACtHR opinions is that national climate plans — known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — must reflect the “highest possible ambition” and be consistent with the 2015 Paris climate agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Alarmingly, as of 2024, global temperatures are on track to rise by up to 3.1°C by the end of the century. Following the September deadline for new NDCs, only half of global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by updated climate pledges, most of which fall well short of science-based targets. The ICJ and IACtHR decisions, however, offer some cause for hope. At COP30, negotiators and civil society representatives can push for ambitious measures, as noncompliance with the Paris agreement’s temperature goals can be challenged not only in diplomatic forums but also in courts. A rapid phaseout of coal, oil, and gas remains essential to effective climate action. But despite the so-called “UAE consensus” to move away from fossil fuels, many countries continue to obstruct progress. Here, too, the ICJ provides negotiators with new tools, explicitly recognizing that governments may be held liable for failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including through fossil-fuel production, consumption, exploration, and subsidies. The legal shift is particularly evident in climate finance. For decades, developed countries have treated funding for climate adaptation and loss and damage as discretionary. Consequently, despite the establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage at COP28, contributions remain far below what is needed. The path forward is clear. The ICJ’s opinion affirms that wealthy countries have a legally binding duty to support mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage efforts across the developing world. To meet these obligations, at least $1.3 trillion must be mobilized annually by 2035, with dedicated provisions for loss and damage. Crucially, the private sector is not being let off the hook. The ICJ, IACtHR, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have all recognized that governments must regulate corporations where necessary to protect the environment, safeguard the climate system, and uphold human rights. At the same time, corporate accountability is taking shape in domestic courts. In a landmark decision, Germany’s Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruled that large emitters can, in principle, be held liable for climate-related impacts. The case, brought by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya, shows that individuals on the front lines of the climate crisis can force polluters to pay their fair share. Remarkably, climate lawsuits by plaintiffs ranging from Indigenous groups in Canada to farmers in Korea are already invoking the ICJ’s reasoning, and a Brazilian court explicitly cited it when ordering a fossil project to cease operations. Instead of waiting for the next court ruling, governments should now take steps to uphold the rule of law and assume responsibility for confronting the climate crisis. That means charting a credible path toward drastic emission cuts, accelerating the phaseout of fossil fuels, and ensuring that climate finance is effective, equitable, and fit for purpose. At COP30, international policymakers should harness the current legal momentum by proposing a global levy on fossil-fuel profits and high-emitting sectors, including shipping and aviation. A decade after the Paris agreement, the world can no longer afford half measures. Vanuatu has already announced plans to pursue a new UN resolution aimed at translating the ICJ’s opinion into concrete political action. By supporting this initiative and acting decisively now, policymakers can build a global climate regime capable of delivering real solutions at the speed and scale this crisis demands. Francesca Mascha Klein is legal officer at Germanwatch. Laura Schäfer is head of the Division for International Climate Policy at Germanwatch. © Project Syndicate
