Generation Justice spokesperson Maya Farmer is one of nine young Australians who this year made a formal complaint to the UN about Australia’s failure to act on climate, supported by Environmental Justice Australia.
In response to today's International Court of Justice climate ruling Generation Justice spokesperson Maya Farmer says:
"This is a huge moment for young people who bear the burden of the climate crisis – the world’s highest court has confirmed countries must cut emissions or face the consequences."
"Australia is on notice: it can’t keep greenlighting fossil fuels and wrecking the climate without accountability."
"We owe so much to the fierce young law students from the Pacific who took this to the ICJ - they’ve made history."
Environmental Justice Australia senior climate lawyer Hannah White says:
"This is a legal turning point for climate justice. The world’s top court has put wealthy and heavily polluting countries such as Australia on notice: they can’t delay and deflect any longer.”
“The court is clear: cut emissions, stop the harm and take responsibility. If governments don’t act, they risk breaching international law."
“States have an obligation to act now to reduce fossil fuel emissions and protect current and future generations”
“This ruling is a breakthrough for communities fighting for climate justice in the courts around the world. It’s a powerful boost for those who have been demanding governments act on climate change."
“This ruling confirms climate change is a human rights crisis, and governments – including Australia – have a binding legal obligation to urgently act with robust climate action.”
“This landmark legal statement demonstrates the power of young people leading the movement for climate justice and reshaping international law to recognise the rights of current and future generations in a changing climate.”
Background:
In 2023, the General Assembly of the United Nations asked the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:
1. What are the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?
2. What are the legal consequences for states when they cause significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment with respect to other states, in particular small island states that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and people in the present and future generations affected by climate change?
In brief, today the ICJ found that States, like Australia, have binding obligations under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system. The Court rejected the key argument used by high-emitting States – including Australia – that attempted to limit their obligations to those set out in the climate agreements and found that all States owe binding obligations to reduce emissions not just under climate-specific treaties (the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement), but also international human rights law and other human rights treaties.
Importantly, the Court noted that those obligations include:
- An obligation to take mitigation and adaptation measures which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 1.5 degree target set out in the Paris Agreement. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court found that 1.5C is the legally binding temperature target under the Paris Agreement and international law. This is the clearest legal affirmation to date that cooperation among states to address climate change and meet this challenge is not optional - it is a binding obligation;
- A duty on all States to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and using all means at their disposal to prevent activities, like the emission of greenhouse gases from causing significant harm to the climate.
- The legal consequences of failing to protect the climate system, may include full reparation to injured states. The Court emphasised that harm caused by multiple sources contributing to climate harms does not absolve states of responsibility.
- A duty to exercise due diligence in ensuring their climate targets (NDC) are capable of meeting the 1.5 degree temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. Countries’ climate plans not discretionary and rich countries on notice of higher standard: The Court clarified that the content of a countries NDC is not completely discretionary. The standard to be applied when assessing the NDC will depend on the country’s historical contribution to emissions and level of development. This means rich countries will be held to higher standards for their NDCs.
- Further, the Court stated that States must exercise ‘regulatory due diligence’ to regulate the activities of private actors contributing to climate change. States must take take necessary regulatory or legislative measures to limit the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities of companies that are under the State’s control.
The case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from the University of the South Pacific. Supported by the government of Vanuatu, the students decided to ask the world's highest court to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis.
Many poorer and so-called developing countries had backed the case, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem. But richer countries, including Australia, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark Paris Agreement, were sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.
For media inquiries: Miki Perkins 03 8341 3110
