The Supreme Court’s decision may affect climate change on the global response – national star-news.press/wp

The highest United Nations court submits a historical opinion on climate change on Wednesday, a decision that can set a legal standard to work all over the world for the Climate Crisis.

After years of pressure by the weak island countries, which are afraid to disappear under the height of the sea, the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 a consultant opinion, which is an undisputed but important basis for international obligations.

A committee of 15 judges was assigned to answer two questions. First, what countries should be binding under international law to protect climate and the environment from greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences of governments when they cause their actions, or the lack of work, to greatly harm the climate and the environment?

“The risks cannot be higher. The survival of my people and many others is at stake,” Arnold Lugeman, the Prosecutor of the nation of Vanuao Island, told the court within a week of hearings in December.

In the nodes until 2023, sea levels rose with a global average of about 4.3 cm (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific Ocean. The world has also pushed 1.3 ° C (2.3 Fahrenheit) since pre -industry times due to burning fossil fuels.

Get the daily national news

Get the best news a day, addresses of political and economic affairs and current affairs, to your in the inbox once a day.

VANUATU is one of a group of small countries that lead to international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many island countries in the South Pacific.

9:12
Why is Canada’s forests more likely to forest fires ever

“The agreements that are made at the international level between the states do not move quickly enough,” Ralph Regeno, Minister of Climate Change in Vanuao, told the Associated Press.

Any decision based on The Hague will be an undisputed advice and unable to compel the wealthy countries directly to work to help the troubled countries. However, it will be more than just a strong symbol, because it can be the basis for other legal procedures, including local lawsuits.

“What makes this issue very important is that it addresses the past, present and the future of climate action. It is not only about future goals – it also deals with historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without facing its roots.”

Activists can file lawsuits against their countries for their failure to comply with the decision, and the states can return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other accountable. Chaudri said whatever the rulers say will be used as a basis for other legal tools, such as investment agreements.

The United States and Russia, both of them from the oil producing countries, are strongly opposed to court discounts.

The mere issuance of the court is the latest in a series of legal victories of the small island countries. Earlier this month, the Human Rights Court among Americans found that the two countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries should better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.

In 2019, the Netherlands Supreme Court achieved the first major legal victory for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from destructive effects that could be devastating climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.

And copied 2025 Canadian press