A historic decision of a Top court of the United Nations has cleared the way for countries to prosecute each other on climate change, including historical emissions of planetary-warming gases.
But a judge of the International Court of Justice in Hague, Netherlands said on Wednesday which part of climate change could be difficult.
The ruling is non-negotiable, but legal experts say it can have widespread consequences.
It will be seen as a win for countries that are very weak for climate change, who came to court after feeling disappointed about the lack of global progress in dealing with the problem.
The unprecedented case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was dreamed in 2019 by a group of students of the youth law in the low-hearted Pacific Islands on the climate change front.
“Tonight I will sleep easily. The ICJ has recognized what we are doing – our pain, our flexibility and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano to Pacific Island Vanuu, which is considered the weakest for the extreme weather globally.
“This is a win not only for us but also for every frontline community that is fighting to listen.”
ICJ is considered the Supreme Court of the world and has global jurisdiction. The lawyers have told BBC News that opinion can be used in the beginning of next week.
Campares and climate lawyers hop that historical decisions will now pave the way for compensation from countries who historically have burnt the most fossil fuel and hence the most responsible for global warming.
Many poor countries had dropped the matter out of despair, claiming that developed nations are failing to maintain existing promises to deal with the growing problem.
But developed countries, including the UK, argued that the existing climate agreement, including the 2015 Landmark United Nations Paris deal, is sufficient and no other legal obligation should be imposed.
On Wednesday, the court rejected that argument.
Judge Ivaswa Yuji also said that if the country does not develop the most ambitious potential plans to deal with climate change, it would be a violation of their promises in the Paris Agreement.
He said that comprehensive international law applies, which means that countries not signed on the Paris Agreement are still necessary to protect the environment, including the climate system.
The court’s opinion is an advisor, but the previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by the governments, when the UK agreed to return the Chagos Island to Mauritius last year.
