The historical decision of the UNIT High Court that allows countries to demand each other for climate change

One of those students, Siosiua Veikune, from Tonga, was in The Hague to listen to the decision.

“I have no words. It is very exciting. They invade us a lot of emotions. It is a victory that we proudly lead to our communities,” he told BBC News.

“Tonight I will sleep more calmly. The ICJ recognized what we have lived: our suffering, our resilience and our right to a future,” said Flora vain, of the island of Vanuatu, considered the most vulnerable country in the world to extreme climatic events.

“This is a victory not only for us, but for all the affected communities that fight to be heard.”

The ICJ is considered the highest court in the world and has global jurisdiction. Several lawyers told BBC News that the ruling could be used from next week, even in national courts.

Activists and lawyers expect this decision to allane the way for countries that historically have burned more fossil fuels and, therefore, are the ones that have the most responsibility for global warming, pay compensation.

Many of the poorest countries had backed the case with the frustration that generates that the developed nations are not fulfilling their promises to address the growing problem.

But developed countries argued that existing climatic agreements, including the emblematic 2015 Paris Agreement, are sufficient and no more legal obligations should be imposed.

This Wednesday, the court rejected that argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji added that if countries do not develop the most ambitious plans to deal with climate change, this would constitute a breach of the promises that assumed in the Paris Agreement.

Iwasawa also pointed out that countries that have not signed the Paris Agreement – or who wish to abandon it, as the United States – are still obliged by international law to protect the environment, including the climate system.

The Court's opinion is advisable, but other previous decisions of the ICJ have been complied with by governments.

“The sentence is a legal milestone,” said Joie Chowdhury, lawyer for the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).

“With this historic and final sentence, the International Court of Justice breaks with normality and reaffirms that those who suffer from the devastating effects of climate change have the right to repair, which includes compensation,” he added.

The Court ruled that developing countries have the right to claim damages for the effects of climate change, such as the destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

And he added that, when it is not possible to restore part of the country, his government may claim compensation.

This could be applied, for example, in case of a specific extreme climate event if it is possible to demonstrate that it was caused by climate change, something that, according to the judge, will have to determine a case -by -case case.

“This is a great victory for climate vulnerable states. It is a great victory for Vanuatu, which led this case and will change the climate defense panorama,” said lawyer Stephanie Robinson, who represented the Marshall Islands.

It is not clear how much each country would have to pay for damages if any demand would prosper.

However, a previous analysis published in Nature estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were losses worth US $ 2.8 billion due to climate change, that is, US $ 16 million every hour.

During the presentation hearings held in December, the court listened to dozens of inhabitants of the Pacific Islands that were displaced as a result of the increase in sea level caused by climate change.

The Marshall Islands stressed that the cost of their adaptation to climate change amounts to US $ 9,000 million.

“There are US $ 9,000 million that the Marshall islands do not have. Climate change is a problem that they did not cause, but they are forced to consider the transfer of their capital,” said Robinson.

The court also ruled that governments are responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries.

And specifically stated that subsidizing the fossil fuel industry or approving new oil and gas licenses could constitute a breach of the country's obligations.

According to lawyers consulted by the BBC, developing countries are already studying the possibility of presenting new demands against the richest and highest emissions, based on the opinion of the ICJ, to claim compensation for their historical contribution to climate change.

If a country wants to take a case before the CIJ to pronounce on compensation, it can only do so against countries that have accepted their jurisdiction, among which are not the United States or China.

However, there can be a lawsuit before any court in the world, whether national or international, citing the opinion of the ICJ, explained Joie Chowdhury, of Ciel.

Therefore, a country can choose to bring its case not before the CIJ, but before a court to which these countries are legally linked, for example, the Federal Courts of the United States.

But the question remains if the CIJ opinion will be respected.

“The CIJ” is an institution subject to geopolitics, which depends on the states abide by their sentences, since it does not have police forces, “said Harj Narulla, a climate specialized lawyer that represented the Solomon Islands.

When asked about the decision, a White House spokesman responded to BBC News:

“As always, President Trump and the entire administration are committed to putting the United States in the first place and giving priority to the interests of Americans on foot.”

Subscribe here To our new newsletter to receive every Friday a selection of our best content of the week.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and act.