Much in the statement is already familiar, but the court has in a clear manner clarified what obligations states have according to the agreements that apply – and that the obligations remain even if a state would have withdrawn from certain agreements, as the USA has done with the Paris Agreement.
The court establishes that this should be interpreted as customary law, i.e. the obligations apply in all situations, says Said Mahmoudi.
One must remember that this is a very unusual case. Nearly 100 states have engaged, and a large number of organizations. Now, it has been clarified what applies. It is interesting that it was a unanimous decision.
”Difficult and complicated”
At the same time, he points out that the statement is not enough for any party to be able to proceed in court.
Of course, for example, Vanuatu could sue another state for their carbon dioxide emissions, but they will probably not do it. It would be very difficult and complicated, since one must be able to specify which state is most guilty, or partially guilty. And the whole process would become enormously prolonged, says Mahmoudi.
”Will not care”
He believes that it would be enormously difficult to prosecute, for example, the USA without involving other countries with large emissions, such as China and India. He also does not believe that any environmental organization will take legal action.
I have great difficulty seeing, for example, Greenpeace being able to utilize this. It can help national courts but not accomplish much regarding states' actions. Many will not care, he says.
