Former Home Secretary Priti Patel has labelled the International Court of Justice's decision to open the door to countries suing each other over climate change as "mad", claiming it had "lost its core purpose".
It comes as the United Nations' highest judicial body weighed in on climate change for the first time, with the now Shadow Foreign Secretary saying the court had joined "bandwagons".
The court had an unanimous opinion that the failure of nations to take action to protect the climate system could constitute "an internationally wrongful act".
However, a judge admitted determining which country caused which part of climate change would be difficult.
The court also found it was a "precondition" for states to protect the environment to ensure human rights.
It added that Government support for fossil-fuel production could be a potential violation.
Patel said: "The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions on issues such as reparations and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments."
REUTERS
|Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Wednesday
“The Labour Government is equally ideologically obsessed with this nonsense."
Patel added that "activist led court rulings like this should never be treated as binding" and compared the process of law fare to the Chagos situation".
"This is the process of law fare that led to the Chagos surrender and must not be replicated on this issue," the Witham MP explained.
"We challenge Labour to put Britain’s interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.”
GETTY
|Judges at the ICJ
The ICJ has no mechanism of actually enforcing an advisory opinion on nations, however, the New York Times reported that it could have far-reaching influence on litigation in courts across the globe.
“The environment is the foundation for human life, upon which the health and well-being of both present and future generations depend,” the court's president Judge Iwasawa Yuji said.
The findings come after the UN General Assembly requested an opinion from the ICJ after campaigning from law students from Vanuatu and other Pacific islands.
It led to a two-week hearing in December where more than 100 countries, organisations and experts addressed the court in a bid to influence the opinion. The court's 15 judges were asked to form an opinion about two main questions.
Those include what countries are obliged to do, under existing international laws and treaties, to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gasses.
The second being what the legal consequences are if, by their acts or omissions, they have caused significant harm.
Countries, including the United States and Saudi Arabia - two of the most powerful fossil fuel producers - argued that the 2015 Paris accord was sufficient enough to address climate change.
The arguments from the United States came towards the end of former President Joe Biden's only term.
President Donald Trump has since withdrawn from the Paris agreement, as well as taking steps to end Washington's ability to fight global warming.
Other countries argued the court should take action, saying the Paris Agreement had no enforcement mechanism.
It cited that global warming was causing higher temperatures, rising oceans and further dangerous storms.
GB News has approached the Labour Party for comment.