Countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and failing to do so could result in them being ordered to pay reparations, the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion on Wednesday.

The United Nations court said that international treaties on climate change “set forth binding obligations” for countries to “adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change”.

A breach of these commitments “constitutes an internationally wrongful act”, said the UN court, adding that this may lead to the violating countries being ordered to provide assurances of “non-repetition of wrongful actions”.

They may also be required to provide “full reparation to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction”, the international court held.

The ruling is not binding, but could pave the way for developed nations to be sued if they fail to control their emission levels, according to reports.

“This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level,” Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for non-profit organisation Greenpeace, was quoted as saying by Reuters.

The case originated from years of campaigning by law students from island nations in the Pacific Ocean, according to The Guardian. It was led by Vanuatu, a South Pacific Ocean nation.

Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, described the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion as a “milestone moment” for climate justice.

“It has confirmed what vulnerable nations have been saying and have known for so long,” he said. “That states do have legal obligations to act on climate change.”

International Court of Justice President Yuji Iwasawa, who headed the panel that issued the advisory opinion, said that nations must collectively seek to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement, reported Reuters.

Under the 2015 deal, nearly all countries have agreed to keep the long-term global average surface temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

However, soon after taking office for his second term as the United States president, Donald Trump had in January signed an executive order once again withdrawing the country from the agreement.

He said that the deal had the potential to “damage or stifle the American economy” and that such agreements “must not unduly or unfairly burden the United States”.

Trump had withdrawn the US from the climate deal in 2017 during his first term. The withdrawal took effect in November 2020. However, the action was overturned by Trump’s successor Joe Biden in January 2021, leading the US to rejoin the agreement in February 2021.

Responding to a question about the international court’s opinion, White House Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Reuters on Wednesday that Trump “and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans”.

Also read: