The International Court of Justice issued a unanimous opinion asserting that states have binding obligations to protect the climate system. The failure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions may constitute an internationally wrongful act. In contrast, the U.S. government announced plans to rescind the EPA's endangerment finding, which categorizes greenhouse gases as harmful pollution. This situation creates a stark divide in legal understandings of climate responsibility between the U.S. and the international community. The ICJ's ruling clarified state obligations regarding climate action.
The International Court of Justice concluded that states have binding legal obligations to act to protect the climate system, asserting that failure to do so may constitute an internationally wrongful act.
The U.S. government announced a plan to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding, which qualifies greenhouse gas emissions as harmful pollution that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The legal understanding of climate responsibility is starkly divided, with the U.S. and the rest of the planet now in "completely separate worlds," highlighting significant contrasts in climate action.
The ICJ opinion marked the first explicit address of climate obligations under international law, removing a longstanding legal uncertainty by clearly defining state responsibilities towards climate action.
#climate-change #international-law #united-states #environmental-protection-agency #legal-obligations
Collection
[
|
...
]