The U.N. maritime court has ruled in favor of greater protection of the oceans in the face of climate change in a case brought by small island countries.

The countries brought the case in September after seeing disproportionate effects from climate change. Raised ocean temperatures have increased the melting of polar ice caps and the level of oceans, a threat for small islands. The countries include Antigua and Barbuda, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Bahamas, Niue, Palau, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

The court stated that countries creating the pollution are under “the specific obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure that... emissions under their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage by pollution to other states and their environment.” The case may be influential in the future regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because carbon emission also pollutes the sea.

According to a statement by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the 169 parties involved in UNCLOS “have the specific obligations to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions and to endeavor to harmonize their policies in this connection.’’

According to the plaintiffs, carbon emission is not recognized as a specific pollutant. The court is considering the interpretation of UNCLOS.

Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, spoke about his concerns regarding greenhouse emissions. "Some will become uninhabitable in the near future because of the failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We demand that the major polluters respect international law, and stop the catastrophic harm against us before it is too late," he said.

Globally, oceans also generate necessary oxygen for human life and absorb carbon to minimize global warming.

This is the first significant international climate case that focuses on the world’s ocean. Amnesty International's head of strategic litigation, Mandi Mudarikwa, said the ruling was “likely to inform future climate justice cases in national, regional and international courts.”