25

JUIN 2026

ARRT

CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE RESPONSABILIT DES TATS-UNIS, UNION

EUROPENNE, CHINE ET ARABIE SAOUDITE

(PHILIPPINES, BOLIVIE & MALDIVES c. TATS-UNIS, UNION

EUROPENNE, CHINE & ARABIE SAOUDITE)

CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY OF UNITED STATES, EUROPEAN UNION,

CHINA & SAUDI ARABIA

(PHILIPPINES, BOLIVIA & MALDIVES v. UNITED STATES, EUROPEAN

UNION, CHINA & SAUDI ARABIA)

25 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHRONOLOGY OF DECISION

I. GEOGRAPHICAL & HISTORICAL CONTEXT & ORIGIN OF DISPUTES

II. ISSUES IN CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY OF UNITED STATES, EUROPEAN
UNION, CHINA, & SAUDI ARABIA CASE
A. States are liable for environmental damage in other states where activities
in the former states are directly responsible for the damages in the latter.
In this case, can it be concluded that activities in the respondents resulted
in the damage in the applicants?
B. Is the science of climate change adequate enough to justify that
respondents activities are the proximate cause of the climate change
impacts being experienced by the applicants?

C. Does the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and other

international instruments such as the Stockholm and Rio Declarations
create liability for contributions by countries to GHG emissions in the
atmosphere?

D. Is the responsibility of the Respondents specific and particular to them (in

contrast to a general obligation to affected countries), thus giving the
Applicants the right to ask the remedies they are requesting?

E. Are the remedies requested by the Applicants appropriate? Can they be

enforced against the Respondents?

F. In the case of China, can it ask for a future exemption of liability on the
grounds of historical responsibility and equity (as evidenced by its low per
capita emissions)?

OPERATIVE CLAUSE
 JUDGMENT

Present: PRESIDENT HICBAN; VICE-PRESIDENT AGUNOY; JUDGES ANDAL, QUINTO,;

REGISTRAR AQUINO.

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE CASE CONCERNING LIABILITY FOR

THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

between

the Republic of the Philippines,

represented by,

H.E. Ms. Kristell Descallar, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Philippines,

as Agent;

the Plurinational State of Bolivia

represented by,

H.E. Ms. Morielle Cario, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia,

as Agent;

the Republic of the Maldives,

represented by,

H.E. Ms. Liane Aquino, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Maldives,

as Agent;

and

the United States of America

represented by,

H.E. Mr. Jet Garcia, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States of America,
as Agent;

the European Union

represented by,
 H.E. Mr. Victor Dalanao Jr.,
as Agent;

the Peoples Republic of China

represented by,

H.E. Ms. Karenina Lampa,

as Agent;

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

represented by,

H.E. Mr. Patrick Arcellana,

as Agent.

THE COURT,

composed as above,

after deliberation,

delivers the following Judgment:

1. By an application filed in the Registry of the Court on, 20 February 2030, the
Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter Philippines), Republic Of Maldives
(hereinafter Maldives), Bolivia (hereinafter Bolivia), instituted proceedings
against the United States Of America (hereinafter United States), European
Union (hereinafter European Union), Peoples Republic of China (hereinafter
China), Saudi Arabia (hereinafter Saudi Arabia) in the case concerning
Liability for the Impacts Of Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the
Climate Change Liability Of United States, European Union, China, Saudi
Arabia & Russia case).

2. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Registrar

communicated a signed copy of the Application forthwith to the Governments of
the United States, the European Union, China and Saudi Arabia; and, under
paragraph 3 of that Article, all States entitled to appear before the Court were
notified of the filing of the Application.
3. By an Order of 5 April 2030, the Court fixed 5 July 2030 and 5 August 2030 as
the respective time-limits for the filing in the case of the Memorials by Applicants
and the Counter-Memorials by the Respondents. The Memorial and the Counter-
Memorial were filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.

4. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, after

ascertaining the views of the Parties, the Court decided that copies of the
pleadings and documents annexed would be made accessible to the public on the
opening of the oral proceedings.

5. Public hearings were held in the joined cases from 14 September 2015 to 1
October 2030. Between 14 and 17 October 2030 and 28 and 29 October 2030,
The Court heard the oral arguments and replies of:

For Philippines: H.E. Ms. Kristell Descallar

For Bolivia: H.E. Ms. Morielle Cunanan

For Maldives: H.E. Ms. Liane Aquino

For United States: H.E. Mr. Jet Garcia

For European Union: H.E. Mr. Victor Dalanao, Jr.

For China: H.E. Ms. Karenina Lampa

For Saudi Arabia: H.E. Mr. Patrick Arcellana

6. At the hearings, Members of the Court also put questions to the Parties, to which
replies were given orally, in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Rules
of Court.

7. In its Application, Maldives asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) The United States, Saudi Arabia, and China, are liable for the impacts of
climate change on Maldives, particularly the loss of lives and damage to
property;

b) The United States, China, and Saudi Arabia should pay Maldives
compensatory damages in the amount equivalent to what is needed to
ensure that its citizens can be safely relocated and given the resources to
survive and thrive;
 c) The United States should be ordered to allow citizens of Maldives to
immigrate to their respective countries as a matter of right arising from
liability, waiving all legal requirements imposed on other citizens.

8. The Philippines asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) The United States and European Union are liable for the impacts of
climate change on the Philippines, particularly the loss of lives and
damage to property;

b) The United States and European Union should pay the Philippines
compensatory damages in the amount of the live lost and damage caused
by the weather events and the flooding it has been experiencing; and,

c) The United States and European Union should be ordered to transfer

technology to the Philippines on a concessional basis so that the
Philippines can adapt to as well as mitigate climate change.

9. Bolivia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) The United States and European Union are liable for the impacts of
climate change on Bolivia particularly the loss of lives and damage to
property;
b) The United States and European Union should pay Bolivia compensatory
damages in the amount of the damage caused by the weather events
both storms and droughts - both countries has been experiencing,
c) The United States and European Union should be ordered to provide
funds to Bolivia so they can adapt to as well as mitigate climate change.

10. At the oral proceedings in the joined cases, the following submissions were
presented by the Parties:

a) States are liable for environmental damage in other states where activities
in the former states are directly responsible for the damages in the latter.
In this case, can it be concluded that activities in the respondents resulted
in the damage in the applicants?

b) Is the science of climate change adequate enough to justify that

respondents activities are the proximate cause of the climate change
impacts being experienced by the applicants?

c) Does the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and other

international instruments such as the Stockholm and Rio Declarations
create liability for contributions by countries to GHG emissions in the
atmosphere?
 d) Is the responsibility of the Respondents specific and particular to them
(in contrast to a general obligation to affected countries), thus giving the
Applicants the right to ask the remedies they are requesting?

e) Are the remedies requested by the Applicants appropriate? Can they be

enforced against the Respondents?

f) In the case of China, can it ask for a future exemption of liability on the
grounds of historical responsibility and equity (as evidenced by its low
per capita emissions)?

* *

I. ISSUES IN CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY OF UNITED STATES, EUROPEAN

UNION, CHINA & SAUDI ARABIA CASE

A. LIABILITY OF RESPONDENTS UNDER THE NO HARM PRINCIPLE UNDER

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
11. All Parties to the present dispute unequivocally acknowledge and respect the No
Harm Principle in their respective pleadings and arguments. Although crafted and
designated by the Parties in varying contours, the difference is merely mechanical
and not substantial. In essence, all Parties agree that every State must ensure that
activities within their respective States do not cause any injury to other States.

12. The United States recognized its customary obligation not to cause any
transboundary harm, but ultimately denied any responsibility over activities
within its State based on the absence of any internationally wrongful act.
According to the United States, the element of attribution is not present.
Therefore, there can be no internationally wrongful act attributed to them. In other
words, whatever injury caused to Applicants may not be attributed to the United
States because the activities questioned are not official acts of its State organs nor
acts acquiesced or acknowledged by it as that of the State.

13. China and EU interposed defenses along the same lines as the United States.
China and EU posit that there is no proof that activities within EU are the direct
cause of the damages brought about by the effects of climate change in their
respective countries. Both their arguments were anchored on evidentiary lapses.
They acknowledged the No Harm Principle but also denied any liability because
of absence of adequate proof to establish their liability. According to them, none
of the Applicants were able to discharge their burden to establish direct causation
between the activities within their States and the purported injury by clear and
convincing evidence.
14. Saudi Arabias defense was more interesting. Instead of interposing the defense of
attribution or insufficiency of evidence, Saudi Arabia argued that it is the least
guilty among the Respondents. It submitted a comparison of the emissions over
the pats decades and argued that its contributions were comparatively lower.

15. In sum, the primary defenses of Respondents were anchored on (1) non-
attribution and (2) insufficiency of clear and convincing evidence to establish
causation.

16. The Court observes that neither of these two defenses is sufficient to avoid their
liability. The Court agrees with the Applicants that the argument of non-
attribution must fail. In the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, it was ruled that any act of
an entity empowered by the law of States and exercises elements of governmental
authority is attributable to the States concerned. It was affirmed that the act of an
entity exercising governmental capacity to exploit all Iranian petroleum resources
by the National Iranian Oil Company was considered as an act of Iran. Therefore,
it is unmistakable that the acts conducted under the governmental capacity of
these corporations should be attributed to the State. Similarly, the United States
cannot evade its liability because the Corporations were exercising elements of
governmental capacity when they engaged in activities which contributed to the
surge of global GHG emissions.

17. Moreover, the breach which transpired here is a breach by an omission. Under
the Articles on State Responsibility, a breach of international obligations may be
through an act or omission. Although there is insufficient link to attribute the acts
of their subjects to the State, the blatant omission of the States involved are
their own and independent act. The defense of attribution fails to convince this
Court because the omission of Respondents to prevent the environmental damage
caused by their subjects amount to a breach of the No Harm Principle.

18. As elucidated in the Trail Smelter case, States must not produce significant
harmful effects in zones situated outside their national jurisdiction. The Trail
Smelter case emphasized the importance of the duty of States to do more than
reparation. This duty means that means that the States should take any suitable
preventive measures to protect any future harm and the environment. This
importance of this sentence can now be found in many treaties or conventions
such as the MARPOL, UNCLOS, and Ozone Convention.

19. The Trail Smelter case succinctly establishes every States (1) duty not to cause
harm and (2) duty to prevent any harm to other States. Respondents violated
these duties because of their fatal omissions to prevent the injuries suffered by
the Applicants. Their omissions effectively became the source of their breach of
their international obligations. Respondents merely invoked defenses on the basis
of technical definitions, in blatant disregard of their obligation not to cause any
harm to other States. We cannot allow this circumvention by the Respondents.
 20. Ultimately, we concur with the Applicants argument that the omissions of
Respondents and their fatal neglect to prevent or to provide compensation
amounts to a breach of their international obligations.

21. The Court also rejects the Respondents defense on lack of evidence to establish
direct causation. The argument of Maldives on the Precautionary principle is
enlightening on this matter. As pointed out by Maldives, the Precautionary
principle provides a basis for reversing the burden of proof in environmental
cases. Under the Precautionary principle, economic actors are liable unless they
can prove that their activities are environmentally harmless. Therefore, it is
erroneous for the Respondents to negate their liabilities based on Applicants
failure to discharge a burden which were never meant to be fulfilled by them in
the first place. On the contrary, such burden ultimately belongs to the
Respondents. Therefore, their argument on lack of clear and convincing evidence
is also patently erroneous.

B. SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE IS SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE TO HOLD

RESPONDENTS LIABLE

22. The Applicants invoked various reports from official and independent bodies to
establish a consistent pattern of intentions that prove deliberate policies that can
be directly connected to events contributing to climate change.

23. Several independent scientific studies were presented to justify that Respondents
activities are the proximate cause of the climate change impacts. This includes
studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment.

24. The United States, European Union, and China share the same defense that
despite scientific evidence which show that the growing problem of climate
change causes serious harm to society, the same is insufficient to make them
responsible for the alleged damage to Applicant due to the lack of logical relation
between the activities of Respondent states and alleged damage to Applicant.

25. Again, Respondent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia invoked a different defense for
instead of denying the causal relation of its activities with the damage to
Applicant countries, it admitted to the sufficiency of the scientific evidence and
claimed that it was wrongfully impleaded for the Kingdom is itself a victim of
climate change.

26. In sum, there is a common agreement with regard to the scientific basis of the
existence of climate change but Respondents oppose liability by denying the
causal connection between their activities and damage to Applicants.
 27. The Court rules in favor of the Applicant and gives credence to the presented
studies which were examined through multiple stages of reviews done by
different governments and experts in the field. The science relied upon by the
IPCC are more than adequate to support the obligations upon states as regards
climate change and shows a clear causal connection between the activities of
Respondent States and the damage caused by climate change.

28. On the contention that the activities and policies of Respondent States have can
not be directly connected to events contributing to climate change is controverted
by scientific studies showing a linear relationship between carbon dioxide
emissions and projected global temperature change. Thus, as the heaviest emitters
of greenhouse gas emissions, Respondents should be held directly liable,
considering they account for more than 50% of the worlds total green house gas
emissions.

C. THE UNFCCC, KYOTO PROTOCOL, PARIS AGREEMENT AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL

INSTRUMENTS CREATE LABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS BY COUNTRIES TO GHG
EMISSIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

29. While Respondents are signatories of the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocal, Rio
Declaration, and Paris Agreement, they claim that the aforementioned may not be
invoked as a basis for liability to provide compensation for Applicants.

30. The respondents characterize these conventions and instruments as mere

commitments or pledges of the signatories to cooperate or to do its part to
reduce carbon emissions. While respondents admit and agree on the obligatory
force of these instruments, they invoke the defense that in the absence of liability
and compensation mechanisms, the Applicants may only avail of technical and
financial remedies.

31. With regard to the UNFCCC, respondents claim that it does not provide for an
absolute limitation on greenhouse gas emissions given its recognition for
continuing and sustainable economic development leaving the discretion with the
States as to the limit of its emission and that it merely serves as a framework for
international cooperation for climate change.

32. Respondent State Kingdom of Saudi Arabia took a different defense. It sided with
the Applicants in holding developed country parties liable for the effects of
climate change under said instruments. In defense, it raised that it is not a
developed party but rather a developing party to the Convention, thus excusing
itself from liabilities.

33. The Court rules in favor of petitioners and holds the instruments as valid legal
bases for their compensatory claims.
 34. What is missing are mere procedural mechanisms. The lack of procedural
methods for enforcing the liability does not mean the liability does not exist. The
breach of international obligations still stands, regardless of a clear and definite
system of enforcing such.

35. More importantly, the claim for compensatory damages by Applicant states can
be traced on customary international law. These treaties and international
instruments and the principles that espouse have become a part of customary
international law, under the no-harm rule.

D. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITY ESPOUSED

UNDER THE PARIS AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE
EFFECTS THEREOF CAN BE ATTRIBUTED PARTICULARLY AND SPECIFICALLY TO THE
RESPONDENTS.

36. The Applicant Maldives argues that Respondent United States of America (USA)
recognizes its specific and particular responsibility under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically, the
Preamble and Article 4(4) of the aforesaid Convention recognizes that developed
countries are the largest contributors of greenhouse emissions, and that developed
countries are mandated to assist developing countries in meeting the costs of
adaptation to those adverse effects.

37. Meanwhile, Applicant Bolivia hinges the specific and particular responsibility of
the Respondents under Article 42 of the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts, and the Doctrine of Common but Differentiated
Responsibility. The former provides that an injured state has the right to invoke
the responsibility of another state if an obligation is breached. The latter,
meanwhile, provides that Respondents have a heavier burden in contributing to
the mitigation and adaptation to climate change by the whole world.

38. The crux of Applicant Philippines in imputing the specific and particular
responsibility of the Respondents is under the Doctrine of Common but
Differentiated Responsibility. In addition thereto, the Applicant forwards the
Polluter Pays Principle under the Rio Declaration on Environmental
Development stating that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution with due
regard to public interest, and without distorting international trade and investment.

39. In defense thereto, Respondent Saudi Arabia provides that it is likewise

considered as a developing country under different environmental treaties and
agreements, hence it cannot be held responsible for the impacts of climate change
on the Respondents.

40. Respondent China forwards the position that the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) espouses the Doctrine of Common
Concern for Human Kind, hence the responsibility of China is a General
 Obligation of all relevant countries to the affected States. In addition thereto,
Respondent China claims that the Applicants have not provided sufficient
evidence of injury on their part.

41. Respondent United States of America (USA), provides that there is no specific
causation between the acts of the Respondents and the alleged damage in
Applicant States territory, hence injury cannot be attributable to them.

42. This Court rules in favor of the Applicants. All the parties hereto are signatories
and ratifying States of the Paris Agreement, Article 2 of which provides that the
Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, based on equity, shall be
implemented.

43. Further, Article 3(b) of the Special Agreement provides that the Parties consider
as conclusive evidence of the state of climate change the scientific findings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The said document provides
that the Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of a strong increase in the use
of fossil fuels and emissions of, particularly, CO2. Hence, therefore, the hallmarks
of the said Industrial Revolution, particularly the Respondents United States and
EU, pursuant to the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, have
the obligation to aid in the mitigation and adaptation of developing states to
climate change.

44. Statistics provided by Applicants state that China ranks 2nd on historical
contributions to global warming. In fact, in 2014, China ranked as the first largest
emitter of GHG gasses. Respondent China, therefore, cannot claim that it is not
liable based on the Principle of Common Concern for Human Kind. The Doctrine
of Common but Differentiated Responsibility reigns supreme as a legally binding
document.

E. THE UNFCCC, THE RIO DECLARATION, THE PARIS AGREEMENT, AND ALL OTHER
TREATY DOCUMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC MECHANISM FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF THE REMEDIES PRAYED FOR BY THE APPLICANTS. THE REMEDIES
PRAYED FOR ARE THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE.

45. The Applicant Maldives prays for this Court to order the Respondents to pay
Compensatory Damages in the amount equivalent to what is needed to ensure that
the latters citizens can be safely relocated and given the resources to survive and
thrive based on the Trail Smelter Case. Further, the said Applicant prays that
Respondents be ordered to allow the formers citizens to immigrate to the latters
countries as a matter of right.

46. Applicant Bolivia likewise prays for Compensatory Damages based on the Trail
Smelter Case. Said Applicant likewise prays for the Transfer of Funds to
Developing Countries pursuant to the UNFCCC and the Copenhagen Accord.
47. Applicant Philippines prays for Compensatory Damages based on the UNFCCC
and the Paris Agreement citing that under the said treaty obligations, the
developed States must assist particularly vulnerable States in meeting the costs of
adequate adaptation methods. The Applicant likewise prays that the Respondents
be liable to Transfer Funds to the former by reason of the binding effect of the
UNFCCC, the Paris Protocol, and the Doctrine of Historical Responsibility.

48. Respondent Saudi Arabia counters by stating that the UNFCCC and the Rio
Declaration are not legally binding documents, while the Paris Agreement is
binding only on the Procedural Commitments provisions thereof. Assuming
arguendo, as Respondent asserts, that the said Agreements are binding in whole,
Saudi Arabia is not responsible for the payment of Compensatory Damages on the
ground that it is a developing country. Ultimately, Respondent Saudi Arabia
stresses that only Respondents USA, EU and China should be held liable.

49. Respondent European Union (EU) claims that there is no legal basis for the
imputation of Compensatory Damages against the said Respondent. It states that
all treaties to which the Respondent EU is a signatory of have no provisions on
the imputation of liability. Lastly, Respondent EU claims that resolve to this
Court was improper on the parts of the Applicants considering that another
mechanism is available to the latter, specifically, the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

50. Respondent China defends itself by stating that the Applicants prayer for
Compensatory Damages are inapplicable considering that the latter failed to
satisfy the elements for the award of such prayer. The lacking elements are:
injury, causality, and quantifying damages.

51. On the issue of appropriateness of remedies prayed for, Respondent USA claims
that it cannot be held to pay for Compensatory Damages on the ground that it has
committed no internationally wrongful act which injured the Applicant States.
Further, Respondent claims that to allow Applicant Maldives prayer for
admission of immigrants is a violation of the Hague Convention on Nationality
granting each state the right to determine its nationals. Lastly, Respondent USA
states that it has long complied with its obligation to provide technological and
financial assistance to applicants as discussed above.

52. The Court rules in favor of the Respondents. The Paris Agreement, although
provides a liability clause, cannot be enforced absent a specific undertaking by the
Parties. Article 8, Paragraph 2 thereof states that the Warsaw International
Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts shall
be determined by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the
Parties to this Agreement. As of the present, there is yet not determination of the
same. The remedies prayed for cannot, therefore, be enforced.

53. The Respondents are likewise correct in asserting that the Trail Smelter Case
provides specific elements for the enforcement of Compensatory Damages against
 an erring State based on Transboundary Harm. The Applicants, however, failed to
satisfy the elements of injury and quantifiable damages.

54. The Court likewise agrees with the Respondents argument that Maldives prayer
for the immigration of its citizens is a violation of the Respondents rights under
the Hague Convention on Nationality. This Court cannot impose on Respondents
the forced immigration of the citizens of Maldives absent a specific provision
thereof in the Treaties to which the Parties are signatories thereto. The same is
unprecedented and a violation of a nations right to self-determination.

F. CHINA CANNOT ASK FOR A FUTURE EXEMPTION OF LIABILITY ON THE

GROUNDS OF HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EQUITY

55. China has claimed exemption from liability for the impacts of climate change on
the grounds of historical responsibility and equity. It asserts that the performance
of obligation in relation to climate change will take fully into that account the
economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities in implementing their commitments under the Convention.

56. Respondent further asserts that China itself is a country vulnerable to the effects
of climate change, and as such, the effective ways to implement its objectives and
commitments will be conditional upon and depend on the extent of delivery of the
commitments of the developed countries.

57. China also applied the Berlin Mandate to justify its conclusion that no new
commitments for developing countries will be introduced. Moreover, it raised the
fact that China emit significantly low GHG emissions per historical capita.

58. Applicants, on the other hand, unanimously raised the application of Common but
Differentiated Responsibility since this principle acknowledges that while
developed and developing countries have different roles to play in tackling and
adapting to climate change with respect to their respective capabilities those
countries who have more capacity to deal with climate change should take on
more responsibility and China as one of the worlds fastest growing economies,
certainly has the capacity to spearhead research and development when it comes
to the adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

59. It must be noted that differentiated responsibility is based upon both historical
responsibility of States and differing capacities of States to address climate
change.

60. Bolivia also asserted that the impacts of carbon dioxide accumulate. Thus,
Chinas emissions of recent years are affecting the climate just as much as the
US emissions from 50 years ago.
61. The Court observes that Respondent has not substantiated its defense against
liability arising from the impacts of climate change. China has not fully proven its
exemption based on the basis of historical responsibility.

62. The Court also agrees with the Applicants that the principle of Common but
Differentiated Responsibility calls for developing countries with more capacity to
deal with climate change in accordance to its capability and development.

63. Equity also mandates that China be liable for its contribution to climate change.
Therefore, the Court rejects Chinas arguments defending its future exemption
from liability arising from climate change.

II. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED

64. The Court concludes from all the above considerations that the Respondents
defenses of non-attribution and insufficiency of clear and convincing evidence
failed to satisfactorily exempt the Respondents from liability. We rule that the
omissions of Respondents and their fatal neglect to prevent or to provide
compensation amounts to a breach of their international obligations. Moreover,
the Precautionary principle postulates that economic actors are liable unless they
can prove that their activities are environmentally harmless.

* *

65. The Court rules that scientific basis for climate change is sufficient and adequate
to hold respondents liable. We are of the opinion that the science relied upon by
the IPCC are adequate to establish a clear causal connection between the activities
of Respondent States and the damage caused by climate change. Hence, the
obligation upon states may not be evaded by using herein contention.

* *

66. The Court holds that the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement, and other
international instruments create liability for contributions by countries to GHG
emissions in the atmosphere. The aforementioned instruments are valid legal
 bases for the compensatory claims of the Applicants, and breach of international
obligations still stands regardless of a clear and definite system of enforcing such.
Moreover, herein treaties and international instruments and the principles that
espouse have become a part of customary international law, under the no-harm
rule.

* *

67. The Court concludes that the doctrine of Common but Differentiated
Responsibility espoused in the Paris Agreement provides that climate change and
its effects can be attributed particularly and specifically to the respondents. All the
parties hereto are signatories and ratifying States of the Paris Agreement, Article
2 of which provides that the Principle of Common but Differentiated
Responsibility, based on equity, shall be implemented.

68. However, in the issue of appropriateness of remedies prayed for, the Court rules
in favor of the Respondents. The Paris Agreement, although provides a liability
clause, cannot be enforced absent a specific undertaking by the Parties. Moreover,
the Applicants failed to satisfy the elements of injury and quantifiable damages
based on Transboundary Harm.

69. Specifically, the Court resolves that it cannot impose on Respondents the forced
immigration of the citizens of Maldives absent a particular provision thereof in
the Treaties to which the Parties are signatories thereto.

* *

70. The Court resolves that China may not claim future exemption from liability
arising from impacts of climate change. Respondent has not fully proven its
exemption based on the basis of historical responsibility. Moreover, the principle
of Common but Differentiated Responsibility calls for developing countries with
more capacity to deal with climate change in accordance to its capability and
 development. Equity also mandates that China be liable for its contribution to
climate change.

* *

71. For these reasons,

THE COURT,

I. Unanimously,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

The Applicants shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that the
Respondents do not commit further acts to disclaim liability from climate
change impacts pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall
inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the
present Order.

II. Unanimously,

Decides that, until the Court has given its final decision, it shall remain
seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace
Palace, The Hague, this twentieth day of May two thousand and seventeen, in
eight copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the
others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, the
Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Government of the Republic
of Maldives, the Government of the United States of America, the Government of
the European Union, the Government of the Peoples Republic of China, and the
Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.