Gutachten des IGH, 23.7.2025 (engl. Original)
The Court observes that the remedy of restitution, which involves the re-establishment of the situation that existed before the wrongful act was committed, may prove difficult or unfeasible in the case of environmental harm, since such harm is often not easily reversible. Nonetheless, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of climate change caused by emissions of GHGs, restitution may take the form of reconstructing damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Whether or not these special forms of restitution are appropriate as reparation for damage suffered by States in relation to climate change is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Such determinations cannot be made in the abstract.
In the event that restitution should prove to be materially impossible, responsible States have an obligation to compensate. The Court observes that compensation, as a form of reparation, has the function of addressing the losses incurred as a result of the internationally wrongful act. Compensation corresponds to the financially assessable damage suffered by the injured State or its nationals. The Court is not requested in this Advisory Opinion to indicate reparation for specific States or to identify such States individually, nor to proceed to the quantification of compensation to be paid by specific States or a plurality of States. However, the Court considers that it is within the scope of this Opinion, in the context of setting out the applicable legal framework for State responsibility, to consider whether compensation could be owed for significant harm caused by climate change, if a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus can be shown between the wrongful acts of one or more States and the resulting harm.
Das Gutachten finden Sie auch hier.