My thanks to the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment, led by my good friend Chief Justice Antonio Benjamin, for organizing this event. And to the many partners who supported it.
Even at current temperatures, climate change has massive impacts on human health, rights and dignity – particularly for those in vulnerable and marginalized situations. We have all witnessed this. And things are going to get worse before they get better.
According to UNEP’s new Emissions Gap Report, current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) put the world on track for a global temperature rise of 2.6 to 2.8°C this century. Current policies point to 3.1°C. In the next round of NDCs, nations must promise and deliver massive cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to avoid overshooting 1.5°C and try to minimize further damage.
Even if this happens, the impacts of climate change will last for decades. And we must not forget that this is part of a wider triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. This triple crisis is threatening the foundations of prosperity, peace and security.
As anxiety grows, people are turning to courts to compel governments and businesses to act. Over 2,300 climate cases have been filed in dozens of jurisdictions. In 2023, we saw the issue elevated to the international stage, with three advisory opinions before international courts or tribunals. And the judicial architecture to hear these cases is also evolving. There are now thousands of specialized environmental courts and tribunals around the world.
Not all cases are going to go the way those who bring them want them to go, as we saw last week in the Netherlands. That is the nature of the law. Judges must follow the law. But even though the landmark Milleudefensie appeal was not upheld, an informed judiciary made pointed observations about the obligations of fossil fuel companies to reduce emissions. And there can be no doubt that such litigation will keep growing. People want climate change stopped or managed, and will use all legal means at their disposal to make it happen.
At the same time, the rules of the game are becoming clearer.
The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment has been recognized by the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. The right has been acknowledged in the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan. In the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. In the Bonn Declaration for a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste. And by other human rights bodies.
Today, 164 States recognize the right to a healthy environment through national constitutions, laws or regional treaties. If nations implement this right fully – which they must – it will empower action on the triple planetary crisis, provide a more predictable and consistent global regulatory environment for businesses, and, crucially, protect environmental defenders and indigenous peoples from persecution.
There have been positive developments on this front. Parties to the Escazu Agreement, in Latin America and the Caribbean, decided to operationalize an article on environmental defenders. Parties to the Aarhus Convention established the world’s first Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders. Further discussions on new environmental rights instruments are emerging in Southeast Asia and Africa.
And talks are ongoing to secure a legally binding instrument to address plastic pollution, with the final round of negotiations about to start in Busan, Republic of Korea. This instrument will have wide-ranging implications throughout the world. Let’s not forget that if plastic production keeps growing as predicted, it will expend a projected 20 per cent of the carbon budget for 1.5°C by 2040.
Friends,
As this legal environment develops and solidifies, judges and the courts will have a prominent role to play in ending the triple planetary crisis.
So, I ask you to work with UNEP to accelerate environmental rule of law. This is the glue that can make commitments in the new NDCs, in the plastic instrument and and other processes stick.
I ask you to work with UNEP and partners to build global judicial capacity for adjudicating climate and environmental cases. We are developing a proposal for a five-year programme, with UNDP and others. We welcome partnership.
I ask you to support institutions like the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment, which is working increase the capacity of judges to answer environment challenges.
Environmental rule of law is a shield that protects people, above all those who cannot protect themselves. Right now, billions of people need that protection. And that, justices, judges and colleagues, is what we must give them.
