International Tribunal Says Countries Must Protect Marine Environment Against Global Warming

On May 21, 2024, a worldwide maritime court discovered that greenhouse gases are a significant contributor to marine pollution.

This is a breakthrough for small island states that are threatened by the increasing sea levels brought about by global warming.

In its first climate-specific judgement, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea stated that emissions from fossil fuels and other Earth-warming gases absorbed by the oceans are to be counted as marine pollution.

Its ruling goes as follows — an “advisory opinion” that should nevertheless offer a precedent for cases elsewhere — also said that the nations need to go beyond the needs of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement to safeguard the marine environment and the states that are dependent on it.

Per Cheryl Bazard, the ambassador of the European Union of the Bahamas (one of the nine Caribbean and Pacific island nations seeking this opinion), the law and science coincided in the tribunal, and both emerged as winners.

Small island nations with minimal economic power but vulnerable to climate change have long felt neglected by successive global summits, where the promises to minimise carbon emissions have fallen far short of the minimum required to restrict the worst impacts of global warming.

The court mentioned that states are legally obligated to supervise and minimise emissions that cause climate change.

It also laid out the specific demands for environmental impact assessments.

It said states’ targets for lowering greenhouse emissions must be objectively set based on the most appropriate and available science and relevant international rules and standards, setting the bar even higher than the Paris Agreement.

The ruling is going to shape future cases.

The ITLOS opinion will inform future legal and diplomatic activities in ending inactions that have brought the world to the brink of such an irreversible disaster, stated Antigua and Barbuda PM Gaston Browne.

Nikki Reisch, the director of the Centre for International Environmental Law, added that to the ones that would conceal the inadequacies of international climate treaties, the opinion makes it clear that compliance with the Paris Agreement is inadequate.

Lawyers and climate activists stated that this decision could heavily influence two views on the states’ climate obligations pending from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights and the International Court of Justice.

A similar and prospective precedent was established last month when the European Court of Human Rights sided with plaintiffs who contended that Switzerland was infringing on their human rights by failing to do enough to prevent climate change.

//Marineinsight