The ICJ is set to determine whether the human right to a healthy environment is a customary international law obligation amid rising climate crises. Over 60 States support its recognition, while a minority dispute its legal significance. The decision will have important implications for international law and the protection of vulnerable populations against environmental degradation.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is contemplating a decisive advisory opinion concerning States’ obligations in relation to climate change, focusing on whether the right to a healthy environment is part of customary international law. Should the ICJ affirm this right, it would create a binding legal obligation for all States. The urgency of this decision is underscored by the impact of environmental crises on marginalized communities worldwide.
Public hearings held last December in The Hague highlighted the overwhelming support among over 60 States for recognizing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in the context of climate emergency. In stark contrast, only ten States—including Australia, Canada, and the United States—challenged its legal significance, asserting that UN recognition of this right lacks political relevance.
The challenges posed by climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss exacerbate systemic inequalities, particularly affecting the most vulnerable populations. The discussion at the ICJ transcends strict legalities, as millions face the dire consequences of environmental degradation. The UN Special Rapporteur on this issue emphasizes the necessity of recognizing this right as customary international law.
Customary international law derives from State practices and customs recognized as binding. The ICJ outlines that a customary rule emerges from consistent State practice and accepted legal obligations, known as opinion juris. The widespread acknowledgment of the right to a healthy environment supports this classification.
Since the 1970s, various international frameworks—including resolutions from the UN General Assembly and regional human rights bodies—have acknowledged this right. Notably, 164 States have enshrined it in national law, reinforcing the argument that it constitutes a widespread practice and should be recognized as customary law.
The legal binding nature of the right to a healthy environment is evident in numerous judicial decisions and regulations across different jurisdictions. Such precedents indicate that States have been held accountable for failing to uphold this right, fulfilling the criteria of opinion juris and emphasizing the necessity for the ICJ’s recognition.
The ICJ is positioned to affirm the right to a healthy environment as customary international law, which would underscore its importance for present and future generations facing environmental crises. The recognition would obligate both States and businesses to address climate-related impacts concertedly.
This landmark decision could catalyze universal acceptance of this right, encouraging non-recognizing States to align with global standards established by the majority. By establishing this right as universally protected, the ICJ would foster stronger environmental governance globally.
The discussion of the human right to a healthy environment is increasingly pressing, particularly in light of mounting environmental crises. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is critical as it may redefine international obligations for states concerning environmental preservation. The background consists of an array of international, regional, and national laws that recognize this right, shaping the context in which the ICJ must operate. The interplay between various legal systems offers a basis for considering the establishment of customary international law regarding this human right.
In conclusion, the ICJ has a historical opportunity to recognize the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as customary international law. The overwhelming support from a majority of States illustrates a clear consensus on the necessity of this right, which will obligate nations to protect their citizens and the environment. By doing so, the ICJ can significantly enhance global environmental protections and respond effectively to the urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Original Source: impakter.com
