The public sentiment is predominantly skeptical and critical regarding the ICJ's recent climate ruling. Many express doubts about its effectiveness, enforceability, and the commitment of major polluting nations to take action. There is a common frustration with perceived governmental inaction and hypocrisy, alongside a growing disillusionment with international bodies' ability to enforce climate commitments.

International Court of Justice

United Nations

Major polluting nations

Short version: Nothing, because "world's highest court" is an extremely misleading phrase. 

Australia, like everyone else, isnt meaningfully subject to some "higher world court".

Minimalist12345678

Australian government: That sign won't stop me, I can't read.

bitterverses

&gt; At issue was the scope of legal obligations. During the court’s deliberations, Australia [sided with other fossil fuel exporters and major emitters](https://theconversation.com/trusted-partner-to-the-pacific-or-giant-fossil-fuel-exporter-this-week-australia-chose-the-latter-245268) – including [Saudi Arabia](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20241202-ora-02-00-bi_0.pdf), the [United States](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20240412-ora-02-00-en.pdf) and [China](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20241203-ora-02-00-bi.pdf) – to argue state obligations on climate change are restricted to those set out in climate-specific treaties such as the [Paris Agreement](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement).
&gt; 
&gt; But the court disagreed. It found countries have additional obligations to protect the climate and take action to prevent climate harm inside and outside their boundaries. These obligations arise in human rights law, the law of the sea, and general principles of international law.
&gt; 
&gt; This clear statement will have groundbreaking consequences. It means [Australia must set a 2035 emissions reduction target](https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/2035-emissions-reduction-targets) in line with the best available science, as required under the Paris Agreement. But it must also go further, by regulating the fossil fuel industry to prevent further harm.

89b3ea330bd60ede80ad

Is there any actual enforcement or punishment if we don’t? (Not saying I don’t want this, we absolutely need to be taking swift, serious action on climate change. But I also know better than to get our hopes up with our government)

Correct_Smile_624

Maximum-Shallot-2447

The ICJ is only a court in name and presentation. It’s not functionally a court.

onlainari

Queasy_Marsupial8107

I love The Conversation, but it's a bit depressing they too have started using the clickbait style headlines like the ABC.  I understand why they do it of course.

neon_overload

Oh no,  the ICJ said something and Australia must bend the knee...

Oh wait, the ICJ and the UN dont control Australia. What a stupid decision.

urzulus

The ICJ dosent mean or do anything, it's very toothless. It's almost a court of virtual signallers tbh

Forest_swords

Ok an international court with no jurisdiction or power over Australia (I dont want to even mention USA or China) wants to achive what exactly. This is all a show, the moment they go after the biggest offenders they gona be told fo FUCK OFF

darkspardaxxxx

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country](https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country)

Disastrous_Grass_376

Seriously, no government cares what the ICJ rules, unless it’s consistent with their policy.

jimbob12345667

So a body with no real authority has made up a new obligation? So what?

Unhappy_Pattern_4333

do our laws or constitution give said court any power?

zarlo5899

This court doesn’t have the ability to punish either individual nations or nations collectively.

It’s literally like being slapped with a wet lettuce.

Also couldn’t Australia realistically say its huge advancement in roof top solar and batteries show a clear desire to move to a renewable economy?

Unless you have a country run by someone like trump who openly admits to not giving a fuck about environmental protections wouldn’t it be impossible to even prosecute something like this? 

Like is the climate getting more cooked in Australia because of what we’ve done or what their countries have done?

ValuableLanguage9151

Het advies van het hof is niet bindend. 

“Herstelbetalingen”

Mooi man, lege huls.

Ruffie001

[deleted]

4n0m4l7

Ook deze shit gaat niet komen, het moment dat ze dit willen afdwingen is sharia wetgeving dwingend.

Boertie

Is maar een ‘advies’ en kan je naast je neerleggen. Wanneer vinden ze nou eens dat landen betaalbaare huizen en voedsel moeten regelen voor hun bevolking. Veel belangrijker dan dat klimaat gezwets

Mcuatmel

De jankerds van de milieu beweging willen anderen weer gedwongen hun wil opleggen. Zelfs mensenrechten bescherming wordt genoemd, terwijl de meeste ‘klimaat’ maatregelen tegen de mensenrechten in gaan(CO2 rechten, beperking keuzes mensen, beperking levensruimte, monitoring burgers, dwang tot extra uitgaven burgers, extra belastingen, verarming burgers). De steun voor deze oogelegde bullshit neemt wereldwijd snel af. Deze dwang gaat enkel averechts werken.

Gerbrandodo

Bizar dat de extreem linkse rechters zich keer op keer zich met politiek bemoeien.

Professional-Big246

Zolang Solar Radiation Modification maar niet wettelijk onder bescherming van het klimaat gaat vallen.

[https://www.kijkmagazine.nl/science/vk-srm-geo-engineering/](https://www.kijkmagazine.nl/science/vk-srm-geo-engineering/)

PunicJester

Since when could a UN membership allow them to sue the UK?

Ordinary-Coast

"A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?"

How did they answer the second question?

Littlepage3130

The Europeans and the Westerners have gone full insane from hubris. They don't understand or realise how bad the situation they are in right now. How bad their credibility and their trustworthiness look like. Literally no one outside the West trusts then anymore. How they ruined their image and credibility into the bottom because of selfishness and self-serving attitudes yet always finding another way to dig the bottom.

Just another declining empire that is full of hubris before collapsing into chaos and disorder. I pray to the Lord that what comes be better because for better or worse there's no changing the course of the ship. May the Lord have mercy on you all because there are horrors that awaits all of us and that are beyond your comprehension.

bahhaar-blts

Alors, c'est bien mais à quel moment les chefs d'états et leurs gouvernements vont id's être inquiètés?

un_blob

Vu l'ampleur des complications futures liées au changement climatique, à la raréfaction des ressources, à la franchissement des limites planétaires, à l'effondrement de la biodiversité, etc .. il serait temps de parler de génocide, au nom du sacro-saint capitalisme.

On va tous mourir, mais on mourra RICHES 🎉

Abdaroth

[nous dans 20 ans](https://images.cartoonstock.com/lowres/actionnaire-action-marches_boursiers-marches_des_actions-courtiers_en_bourse-CC137952_low.jpg)

MajinJack

Vu et s'en tape; - Nos dirigeants, probablement.

TheBelgianDuck

Parfait, venez arrêter tout le gouvernement français svp, nous on sait plus quoi faire d'eux.

pillowcase-of-eels

Le réchauffement climatique peut donc pénétrer notre escape aérien sans problèmes

Ababajanoi

Je me réjouirai quand le fait illicite engagera la responsabilité des entreprises pollueuses

i_am_square

The International Court of Justice has provided its Advisory Opinion on climate change, making clear that states most responsible for the crisis have a legal obligation to protect current and future generations by cutting emissions and providing reparations for those affected. 

Driven by a demand from Pacific youth and island nations supported by a coalition of civil society, Indigenous Peoples and States, the World’s Court has taken action to put high emitters on notice. This advisory opinion will shape international norms and now exists as a tool our leaders can use to negotiate stronger climate policy in a struggling multilateral system.

The oceans are rising, but so are we. Once again, young Pacific Islanders have stepped up with courage and made sure that our reality, as a community on the frontlines of the climate crisis, is witnessed by the world’s highest court. 

Today’s outcome adds strength to our fight for our future, placing our basic human rights at the heart of states’ climate obligations, and setting a new legal and moral benchmark for climate action.

 The ICJ has upheld the call for greater accountability, at this crucial time for our survival. A line has been drawn, and high-emitting states now have the obligation to address their climate responsibilities head on.



___

UN’s Top Court Rules That ‘Clean, Healthy’ Environment Is a Human Right.

In a landmark finding, the United Nations’ top court on Wednesday issued an advisory opinion stating that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling supports the obligation of UN member states to tackle the climate crisis and outlines the consequences they could face if they fail to do so.

https://www.ecowatch.com/un-healthy-environment-human-right-icj.html

HoomanaoPoinaOle

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a landmark advisory opinion declaring that countries are legally obligated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate.

International Court of Justice Climate Ruling

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want