Chile and Colombia asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to interpret what obligations nations have to respond to human rights issues, such as migration, that are caused or exacerbated by the climate emergency. And in March, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling on the UN-affiliated International Court of Justice to clarify a similar issue.

Of these, ITLOS is expected to be the first to respond publicly, likely by next spring.

…

If and when ITLOS issues its opinion laying out the legal requirements of states to respond to climate change, the decision will not be legally binding. Nor will it relate to every country in the world. UNCLOS is an opt-in international agreement, and some countries—notably the United States—have not signed on. Regardless, experts say the tribunal’s decision is likely to affect the opinions of other courts, such as the International Court of Justice.

So no matter what they say, nothing will be done until/unless their are also subsequent successful lawsuits that cite the findings to win against polluters, and then also win in appeals and eventually get some compensation – which will also be unlikely to change any damaging pratices, but might get a few people out of harm’s way.