The court has now come in strong support for these arguments, affirming that countries can be held liable for breaking their obligations under climate change agreements and for causing climate-related harm.
Crucially, the court clarified that climate reparations go beyond money and compensation. They extend to restitution – restoring the situation to what it was before the violation of international law – and satisfaction, which may include formal apologies, public acknowledgements or public education about climate change.
Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court for Human Rights took a major step by affirming that even if warming is limited to 1.5°C – a threshold the world is increasingly likely to breach – the climate crisis violates human rights.
It concluded that states are obligated to provide reparations for harms already caused. Now, the ICJ has followed suit, affirming that climate-destructive conduct may violate international law and trigger legal consequences.
By rejecting the arguments of major emitters and upholding the rights of climate-vulnerable communities, the court has shattered a decades-old taboo. Reparations are no longer a fringe demand; they are a legal necessity.
The momentum is undeniable: the courts have spoken, and governments must act. They may have ignored the rising calls for reparations coming from the frontlines and the streets. They cannot ignore the world’s highest court.
Reparations are not only possible but are required by law. We are entering a new era of climate accountability.
This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit https://www.context.news/.