With temperatures set to dramatically exceed the critical 1.5掳C limit of warming above pre-industrial levels, our planet is in a state of climate emergency. Our ability to withstand the environmental onslaught is being pushed to the brink, particularly in small island states like my home country of Trinidad and Tobago and other vulnerable nations.
Recognising this urgency, United Nations member states have an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the climate obligations of individual nations. Governments could use its advice to understand and legislate their own moral duties, but they aren鈥檛 legally bound to do so, thus the opinion alone is unenforceable.
Advertisement
It is a laudable move, but there is minimal force behind it, for there is no court in the world with jurisdictional authority to properly address climate change and biodiversity loss. Even the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which I have been a judge, only has jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Statute, which triggered its creation. This doesn鈥檛 include climate injustices.
What we need is an International Environmental Court (IEC). If this were created by statute, following in the footsteps of the ICC, then it could emerge as a permanent judicial body with the ability to impose penalties and sanctions against states that have violated environmental laws.
An IEC would provide a concrete deterrent and a way to implement remediation, while also building a body of case law and legal theory 鈥� empowering vulnerable people all over the world to demand climate justice. Cases of climate litigation have more than doubled in recent years, but their success rate remains woefully low.
Fixed legal frameworks could secure wins that are otherwise impossible. Currently, we have no such framework for enforcing rulings. In November 2024, for example, the Court of Appeal of The Hague in the Netherlands overturned a lower court decision that would have forced Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions.
The creation of an IEC won鈥檛 be easy. The Rome Statute was hotly contested during initial talks and only regained traction thanks to pressure from Trinidad and Tobago. By 2002, it had secured the 60 ratifications it needed for the court鈥檚 creation. Now, its authority is recognised by 125 countries.
Today, we have the same impetus for climate justice, but our soft law instruments won鈥檛 suffice. In 2023, for example, 197 countries plus the EU agreed to the momentous at the COP28 climate summit. For the first time in history, they committed to 鈥渢ransition away鈥� from fossil fuels. This unprecedented consensus can provide solid foundations for a new statute, declaring the need for an IEC to enforce its key terms.
COP28 empowered lower-income countries and Indigenous peoples to have their voices heard. Their demands for a 鈥�loss and damage鈥� reparations fund were finally met, with an initial injection of $700 million.
A year later, however, momentum dwindled at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The loss and damage fund was left billions of dollars short and the fossil fuel transition agreement was referred for renegotiation in 2025. This is why we need a permanent judicial mechanism to ensure such promises are legally binding and cannot be backpedalled.
So I call on the UN to develop a statute triggering the creation of an IEC. Given COP28鈥檚 consensus, we can surely reach whatever threshold the UN requires to edge a new statute over the line.
For vulnerable countries, an IEC is the last bulwark against rising sea levels, hurricanes, cyclones and devastating floods. Salvation of the global environment must begin somewhere, and the IEC is the panacea we seek.
Anthony Carmona was the fifth president of Trinidad and Tobago and is a former International Criminal Court judge
