255

🌍⚖️ Sébastien DuyckJuly 23, 2025 at 8:49 AM EDT

🔥 ⚖️ 🌐HAPPENING NOW: Historic #ClimateJustice Ruling being delivered by the 🇺🇳 🧑‍⚖️ International Court of Justice. 🚨This ruling could signal a new dawn for climate law & accountability 📝 🧵 Live thread below with context, summary & analysis 👇 #ClimateJusticeAO #AOLetsGo

2/ Starting in less than 10 mins, 15 judges of International Court of Justice will deliver one of most important rulings ever delivered by the Court as it is expected to reaffirm how international law applies in the context of climate change. Follow live: journal.un.org

3/ Even before the ruling is delivered, one must recognize the incredible journey that has laid the path to this historic moment. From a Pacific University's classroom to the world's highest court, this judicial process owes much to the leadership of #pisfcc #VanuatuUN & #WY4CJ 4/ "La Cour": in the great hall of the Court of the ICJ in 🇳🇱The Hague, judges are taking their seats for the reading of their authoritative judicial opinion regarding States obligations on climate change, in response to 2 questions posed to them by the 🇺🇳UN General Assembly...

5/ The 🇺🇳 UN General Assembly triggered this process through the adoption *by consensus* of a dedicated resolution on 29 March 2023 which was cosponsored by 132 States. 🔖Read the UN resolution: drive.google.com

6/ 🔍The UN General Assembly asked the Court to answer two questions: 🔹 What are the legal obligations of States under international law to tackle climate change? #Mitigation 🔸 What consequences are triggered when States have failed to uphold these obligations? #LossAndDamage

7/ The reading of the ruling begins. 🧑‍⚖️Judge Iwasawa Yuji, president of the Court, makes clear that the Court will read only some of the sections of the Opinion. The Opinion itself will be made available right at the end of this reading.

8/ Jurisidiction (= is the Court competent to address the question): the Court accepts that the questions are legal in nature and that there is no compelling reason for it not to respond to the UNGA = the Court confirms that it will address these legal matters.

9/ 🧑‍🔬Science: the Court notes that the States participating in the process recognized the @ipcc.bsky.social as the best available science. Judge Iwasawa Yuji goes on summarizing key findings of the IPCC latest report. 10/ 🔥Judge Iwasawa Yuji quotes straight from the IPCC: "Warming of 1.5°C is not considered 'safe' for most nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors, and poses significant risks to natural and human systems." - this is a very strong basis for the Court's legal conclusions! 11/ Judge Iwasawa Yuji opens the legal obligation with some very strong statements: noting that the two questions of obligations and legal consequences for breach of obligations are interrelated. 12/ On the material scope of this legal inquiry, the court affirms that it will address the full range of human activities that contribute to climate change as a result of the emission of GHGs including both consumption and production activities. - this is promising! 13/ 🗺️Regarding the territorial scope of its analysis: the court points to the fact that the 🇺🇳UNGA did not impose territorial limits to the inquiry and stresses that GHG emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited. 14/ 🎇 On the sources of law considered for this ruling, the Court emphasizes that it has considered the entire corpus of international law as requested by the UNGA resolution. This is an important announcement! Let me explain... 15/ 🔍Big polluters, whether governments or corporations, have relied heavily on the argument that the 🇺🇳UN Climate Agreements (incl. the #ParisAgreement) constitute the PRIMARY/EXCLUSIVE framework to understand the scope of States' climate obligations... 16/ ... this has allowed polluters to hide behind the deficiencies of the climate agreements, which constitute, to a large extent, the common lowest denominator, thereby allowing States to avoid accountability. 17/ However, many norms of international law predated these climate agreements and lay out much clearer legal obligations, driven by common sens and good governance and not marred by climate politics. 18/ The Court lists legal norms that played a key role in its analysis of States' legally binding obligations: starting with the 🇺🇳UN Charter and including "most strictly relevant applicable law" comprising the three UN climate treaties but also encompassing...

19/ ... other international treaties incl. the Ozone Convention and the Desertification Convention. The applicable legal framework further encompasses legal norms and principles of "customary international law" (the Court is mandated by its status to consider such legal norms...)

20/ The Court notes in particular the relevance of customary norms related to: 🔹duty to prevent significant harm to the environment 🔸duty to cooperate internationally! 👉 These norms are going to be critical to the responses of the Court to the questions before it. 21/ ⚖️ The Court affirms that States' human rights obligations are also part of the applicable law relevant to this case, with ref. to HRs obligations provided by customary law and by human rights treaties. 👉this is fully aligned with recent rulings of human rights courts! 22/ The Court then turns to one of the most important arguments of the big polluters who sought to obstruct climate accountability: do the climate agreements constitute "lex specialis"? 🥁🥁🥁The response of the Court to this question is going to be critical! 23/ The doctrine of "lex specialis" affirms that when two norms of law contradict one another, the most specific prevails... Polluting States argued before this Court (& other judicial forums) that this implies that the #ParisAgreement creates a regime of exception.

24/ The Court dismisses this argument unequivocally, noting that there is no contradiction between the UN climate agreements and other norms of international law, on the contrary: other legal frameworks are explicitly cited in the UN climate agreement!

25/ Through this clear statement, the Court puts to rest - hopefully once and for all - the bad faith legal argument used by polluters to claim that the climate agreements protect them from accountability for climate harms. 🪦R.I.P. Lex Specialis argument in climate justice cases

26/ The Court then unpacks the legal obligations and legal principles drawn from the three 🇺🇳UN climate agreements: 🔹the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change 🔸the 1997 Kyoto Protocol 🔹 the 2015 Paris Agreement 27/ 🌡️With regard to the temperature threshold relevant for today's ruling, the Court affirms, building on science and COP decisions, that the 1.5c temperature target must be understood as the internationally agreed objective of climate policies! 28/🪧✊Ten yrs ago in negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement, vulnerable States & civil society mobilized to secure a reference to the 1.5c temperate limit in the agreement, building on the IPCC findings. 👉The Court made clear today that this is now the only relevant limit.

29/ Drawing from the provisions of the UN Climate Agreements, the Court stresses in particular 5 principles: 🔹common but differentiated responsibilities & respective capabilities 🔸precautionary approach of principle 🔹sustainable development 🔸equity 🔹intergenerational equity 30/ The Court then addresses States' mitigation obligations based on Article 4 of the Paris Agreement. The Court explicitly dismisses the argument put forward by some States that they have full discretion to set the ambition of national climate action. 31/ The Court take a no-nonsense approach to reading the key elements of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, which explicitly requires: 📈progression over time 💪highest possible ambition 🌡️adequate contribution to the achievement of the temperature goal at the light of equity

32/ The Court concludes that, under the UN Climate Agreemnt, the standard of diligence related to the national mitigation ambition is *stringent*. 33/ 🗣️By affirming that the Paris Agreement imposes real mitigation obligations on States, the Court reclaims its role as a cornerstone of climate accountability—pushing back against years of attempts by high-emitting States and corporations to render it toothless. 34/ 🏚️The Court concludes its analysis of relevant provisions of the Paris Agreement by stressing legally binding obligations related to adaptation measures, responding to loss and damage and the due to cooperate - in line with other norms of international law. 35/ The court then turns States' obligations under customary law relating to climate change, with regard to duty to prevent significant enviro harm. 👉This will be key to complement the obligations provided under Paris & to define the obligations of other States (cf: 🇺🇸). 37/ With regard to the legal standard, the Court emphasises that "the higher the probability and the seriousness of possible harm, the more demanding the required standard conduct" and the importance of considering this obligation at the light of cumulative emissions! 38/ 🌐The Court then highlights the relevance of the duty to cooperate - as a legal obligation - with regard to mitigation, which includes the need for good faith in international negotiations. 39/ Addressing the unique situation of the US but without naming it, the Court affirms that States not party to one or more of the UN climate treaty must nevertheless meet equivalent obligations under customary international law. 40/ 🌊The Court highlights the relevance of other legal frameworks, incl. the law of the sea, and echoes the conclusions of the 🧑‍⚖️ #ITLOS_TIDM in finding that GHG emissions must be prevent as they constitute a source of marine pollution. 41/ The Court continues with strong statement with regard to sea level rise, stressing the importance of the presumption of continued statehood for States threatened by sea level rise and the importance of the principle of non-refoulement for climate-displaced people. 42/🎇 Many strong statements in this Advisory Opinion! This is a treasure throve of legal arguments. And buckle up - this is not over... 43/⚖️🌱The Court then turns to international human rights obligations... It first recognizes the importance of legal obligations related to several rights, incl. right to life, to privacy, to health, to children and women, but more importantly... 44/⚖️🌱the Court then leans its full support to the imperative of protecting the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment resulting from the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment. 45/ ⚖️🌱The Court. "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent to other human rights. Under international law, the RtHE is essential to the enjoyment of other human rights." 46/ This is a powerful judicial reaffirmation of a universal right recognized by the UN General Assembly in its resolution 76/300 three years ago! 47/ The Court turns to question B - what are the legal consequences arising from breach of obligations by polluting States, with regard to other States & to vulnerable people. 👉This is key to defining how international law applies to fossil fuels & loss & damage, for instance. 48/ The Court stresses that its duty is to determine the legal framework to determine whether a State or lack of State is responsible of a breach of its obligations and the remedy available in case of such a breach... 49/ This was clearly one of the most divisive issues in the arguments laid out by states throughout the proceedings leading to today's ruling... 50/ The Court starts by considering whether law of State responsibility for wrongful acts applies in the context of climate change. The court rejects once again any "lex specialis" - international legal principles must prevail also in the context of climate harms! 51/ The Court then considers what constitutes harmful conduct in the context of climate change, stressing in particular the fact that the State can be held accountable for the actions and omissions of any organ under its jurisdiction. 52/🚨The Court then delivers a powerful statement: failure of a state to take appropriate action to regulate fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel licences, fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state 53/ The Court continues with its no-nonsense analysis by rejecting arguments advanced by historic polluters regarding the impossibility of determining accountability in the context of a plurality of contributors and victims. 54/ The Court lays a path to climate justice: "each injured state may separately invoke the responsibility of every state which has committed an international wrongful act resulting in damage to the climate system and other parts of the environment" 55/ The Court continues with strong statements that will buttress legal actions for compensation: the Court stresses that: "the fact that the damage was a result of concurrent causes is not sufficient to exempt the state from any obligation to make reparation". 56/ The court then unpacks in much detail the legal obligations and the relation with causation for key legal consequences arising from breach of obligations, incl: compensation, restitution... 57/ The court is now reaching its conclusions, with regard to mitigation: A- state parties to the UNFCCC have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change 58/ B- state parties listed in Annex one (Global North countries) to the UNFCCC have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs 59/ C- State parties to the UNFCCC have a duty to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the convention 60/ D- state parties to the Kyoto Protocol must comply with the applicable provisions of the protocol E- state parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in accordance w. their CBDRRC, capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving 1.5 61/ F- State parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate & maintain successive and progressive, nationally determined contributions, which in the area, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting warming to 1.5c 62/ G- State parties to Paris Agreement have an obligation to pursue measures to achieve objectives set out in their successive NDCs, and eight state parties to the Paris Agreement agreement have obligations of adaptation & cooperation, including through tech. and fin. transfers 63/ With regard to legal consequences: the breach by a state of any obligations identified in response to question a constitute an international act entailing the responsibility of that state... 64/ ... the Responsible state is under a continuing duty to perform the obligation breached. The legal consequences resulting internationally wrongful acts may include obligations of: 🔹cessation of the wrongful actions, 🔸assurances of no repetition, and 🔹full reparation. 65/ The registrar now reads the conclusions in French... Note that all of the Court's conclusions were unanimous, providing the maximum weight to these legal conclusions.

66/ 🎆 What a clear ruling today! What a victory for #ClimateJustice! On fossil fuels, right to a healthy environment, historic responsibility, compensation, duties of States withdrawing from Paris: the Court's affirmation of legal principles will enable a new era of accountability. 67/ 🔜Please do not miss our high-level panel tomorrow to unpack key learnings from this historic judicial ruling and what lays ahead! 📅July 24., 5:30pm CEST 📝online registration: bit.ly #AOLetsGo #ClimateJusticeAO

1 / 16