نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction
Climate change constitutes one of the most pressing global challenges, with profound consequences for the environment, the economy, and international law. States bear primary customary and treaty-based obligations to prevent and control greenhouse gas emissions. This research investigates whether states can be held internationally responsible for their role in climate change and compelled to compensate for resulting damages. The study analyzes the legal foundations for state responsibility, examining the applicability of the International Law Commission's (ILC) 2001 Draft Articles, with central emphasis on the landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. The paper investigates core challenges, including attribution of conduct, causation in cumulative environmental harm, and responsibility for long-term aggregated damage.
Method
This research employs a doctrinal legal methodology, qualitatively analyzing primary and secondary legal sources. Primary sources include the UN Charter, the 1992 UNFCCC, the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 2001 ILC Draft Articles, and the pivotal 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion. The analysis dissects the ICJ's findings on the applicability of general state responsibility rules, the standard of "stringent due diligence," and the Court's approach to attribution, cumulative damage, and causality. The study extensively examines international case law, including foundational cases such as the Corfu Channel Case (1949) and the Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941), establishing the "no-harm" rule; the Island of Palmas Case (1928) and the Lotus Case (1927) on sovereignty limits; the Lake Lanoux Arbitration (1957); and recent ICJ jurisprudence, including the Pulp Mills Case (2010), the Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua Case (2018), and the Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights in the Caribbean Sea Case (2022). Secondary sources include scholarly works and official ILC reports.
Conclusions
The analysis yields several significant conclusions. Primarily, the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion provides definitive legal clarity by confirming that the customary rules of state responsibility, codified in the ILC's 2001 Draft Articles, are fully applicable to the context of climate change. The Court firmly rejected arguments that the climate change regime constitutes a "self-contained" system precluding general secondary rules, affirming that states cannot evade scrutiny under general international law. The ICJ establishes that states' primary obligations carry a legal standard of "stringent due diligence," necessitating robust measures to reduce emissions beyond mere good-faith efforts. The Court clarified that the internationally wrongful act is not the emission itself, but rather a state's failure to exercise due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system. This framing allows attribution of responsibility for a state's legislative and regulatory failures without needing to attribute every individual emission from private actors directly to the state. The study finds that the opinion, while groundbreaking, avoids the most challenging practical questions. It acknowledges the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a specific state's contribution to cumulative global emissions and a specific climate-related event and does not provide a clear mechanism for apportioning liability among the multitude of responsible states, leaving significant room for future litigation. Despite these unresolved complexities, the ICJ's opinion is a watershed moment. It significantly strengthens the legal and political impetus for states to comply with their mitigation commitments by raising the prospect of legal accountability and provides a powerful tool for vulnerable states and non-state actors. This research establishes that the principle of territorial sovereignty is not a shield for states to cause transboundary environmental harm but a source of legal obligation. The "no-harm" rule, reinforced by the ICJ's opinion, is evolving to form a firmer foundation for a global regime of state responsibility for climate change, promising a significant impact on future international legal discourse and policy.
کلیدواژهها English
