At the initiative of Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation, a historic climate case was launched on December 2 in an effort to force global climate action.
What will the focus of the case be?
The hearings will focus on the obligations of states regarding climate change and what the legal implications of those obligations are. Seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice provides a legal framework to address climate change on a large scale.
The two central questions are:
What obligations do states have under international law to ensure the protection of other states and present and future generations from climate change?
What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States when they fail to take sufficient action on climate change or continue to emit greenhouse gases? In particular, what are the consequences for vulnerable countries?
Origin of the case
Vanuatu is home to about 320,000 people spread across 83 islands, many of which are no more than a meter above sea level. Residents are seeing more and more of their land disappear underwater due to climate change. Vanuatu lobbied for years to gain support for the plan to ask the court for advice. It started in 2019, when a group of law students from the University of the South Pacific launched a campaign to address climate change. The government of Vanuatu joined in, and in September 2021, the island announced its intention to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on climate change. In doing so, it explained that the initiative was needed because the island and other small, developing island states are vulnerable to climate change and because more action is needed to address the global climate crisis.
Vanuatu then lobbied other countries for support for the initiative and formed a core group of UN member states to push the initiative forward in the General Assembly. This led to the development of Resolution A/RES/77/276, which requests an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the aforementioned two questions.
It is the largest case ever brought to the International Court of Justice. A record 97 states and 11 international organizations will participate in the hearings. The hearings offer countries and organizations the chance to elaborate on their previously submitted written statements and testify directly.
The sessions follow a week after the 29th climate summit. Many developing countries were disappointed with the climate finance agreement reached at the climate summit. Instead of $1,3 trillionn a year in climate aid for poorer countries, it came to $300 billion a year. Representatives of those countries found the agreement offensive. According to them, the agreement does not give them the resources they need to address the climate crisis. Since small developing countries are already facing the worst impacts, it is even more important for them to have a strong legal framework setting out international legal obligations.
Political implications
Court opinions are not binding but clarify legal questions. The requesting body or organization, in this case the General Assembly, decides what to do as a result of the opinions. The opinions do have heavy authoritative value because of the status the International Court of Justice has.
There is a strong likelihood that judges will conclude that countries must do everything they can to prevent harm to other countries and that countries that have emitted high levels of greenhouse gases, and continue to do so, are obligated to contribute to restoration of justice and remedy the harm done to other countries. This could give smaller states a stronger bargaining position within the international community. It could also influence future large-scale international and national climate cases.
Hearings will last until December 12 and the International Court of Justice is likely to rule at the beginning of 2025.
Comments