That’s OK - Many official human rights treaty bodies say countries are responsible for their climate failures and the resulting impacts on people outside their borders. @oxfaminternational.bsky.social described them here: climatecasechart.com/wp-content/u...

11. Human rights treaties can apply to a State’s conduct that affects people outside their borders, if the text of the treaty provides for this. The Court doesn’t say which treaties apply.

10. People who have to seek safety in another country due to climate change cannot be returned where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the right to life (the principle of non-refoulement).

9. States do not lose their territorial rights due to sea level rise.

8. Climate finance can be litigated. The duty to cooperate is subject to a due diligence obligation. The Court says that a Court can review the adequacy of current financial and technology transfer commitments.

7. The Court recognizes that human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights. Implying this right is implicit under human rights treaties. There were strong arguments this was already the case, but the ICJ ends any argument.

6. States that fail in their duties to protect the climate can be required to provide reparation to affected countries based on the extent of their failure.

5. States can be held to account for their conduct that leads to emissions in other countries or their conduct that lets private parties off the hook.

4.The ICJ invites litigation against the wealthiest petro-states! It says fossil fuel production, consumption, granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, where a State is not doing enough to protect the climate, may break international law.

And they must take human rights law into account in their climate measures.

3. Human rights law is clearly established as part of addressing the climate crisis. Countries must reduce emissions and help people adapt as part of their obligations under human rights law, especially the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.

2. It’s a shot in the arm for climate litigation. The Court says countries cannot hide behind the Paris Agreement’s. They have “limited” discretion in preparing their national climate plans. The Court clearly rejects arguments by the US and other countries that said the opposite.