The ICJ held unprecedented hearings on 2 December 2024, addressing State obligations on climate change. Initiated by Vanuatu, the sessions featured participation from many nations, reflecting a collective urgency to clarify international climate law. Participants acknowledged the reality of climate change while highlighting disparities between developed and developing nations regarding legal obligations. The Court’s anticipated advisory opinion holds significant potential to shape future climate initiatives globally.
On 2 December 2024, the historic sessions at the Peace Palace commenced, featuring the participation of States and international organizations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group delivered the initial statements, emphasizing the necessity of addressing climate change as a significant threat to humanity. This event, initiated by law students from Vanuatu, reflects nearly four years of determined advocacy for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States concerning climate change.
The landmark decision to seek an ICJ advisory opinion stemmed from a UN General Assembly resolution adopted on 29 March 2023 by consensus. This was the first consensus request for an ICJ advisory opinion in 75 years, highlighting the global recognition of the need for legal clarity in environmental challenges. Vanuatu and its allies strategically navigated the legal landscape, learning from past unsuccessful initiatives to present a robust case.
The proceedings witnessed unprecedented participation—91 written statements and 107 oral submissions were made, including contributions from new participants such as Nepal and Barbados. Small island States significantly engaged, reflecting their vulnerability to climate-related threats. This engagement is also mirrored in other international forums, indicating a growing trend among affected nations to leverage legal avenues for climate justice.
The participation of Pacific Island States was particularly notable, with twelve out of eighteen submitting contributions. Their involvement, encompassing organizations like the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency and the Alliance of Small Island States, consolidates their leadership in climate action initiatives. This demonstrates a proactive stance from regions facing existential threats due to climate change, reinforcing their demand for accountability and action.
During the proceedings, all parties recognized the reality of climate change induced by human actions—an acknowledgment even made by Saudi Arabia. However, differences emerged regarding the applicability of foundational principles of international environmental law. Disputes centered on whether these obligations extend beyond climate treaties to encompass broader principles of international law, especially regarding accountability mechanisms.
As discussions progressed, a clear divide became apparent between developed and developing nations regarding the legal framework governing obligations on climate action. Developed States predominantly advocated for a limited interpretation, focusing on specialized treaties, while developing States emphasized a broader application of customary international law. This illustrates the ongoing tensions and complexities in addressing climate change responsibilities within the international community.
The human rights implications of climate change also emerged as a crucial theme, particularly for vulnerable populations. Various States, including the UK and US, contended that existing human rights treaties do not mandate climate action, leading to considerable debate on the integration of human rights perspectives in climate policy. Palestine uniquely highlighted the need for the ICJ to consider GHG emissions associated with armed conflict, adding another dimension to the discourse.
Concluding the hearings, the ICJ justices presented four questions addressing critical aspects of the ongoing climate crisis, pertaining to fossil fuels, human rights to a clean environment, and treaty obligations. With sixty-five written responses submitted post-hearings, the expectations for the advisory opinion are high. Countries, legal institutions, and civil societies alike await the ICJ’s insights, recognizing its potential influence on global climate policy.
As the Court prepares to deliberate, its upcoming advisory opinion will significantly impact legal interpretations of State obligations in the context of climate change. The outcome holds substantial relevance for young advocates, policymakers, and the global populace striving to address the urgent climate crisis, despite the non-binding nature of the opinion. The international community anticipates that the ICJ’s judgment will lend weight to ongoing climate action initiatives worldwide.
The ICJ hearings on climate change mark a pivotal moment in recognizing the legal implications and obligations States hold regarding environmental issues. With significant engagement from vulnerable nations and the clear acknowledgment of climate change’s urgency, the proceedings highlighted the need for legal clarity in addressing climate obligations. As the Court deliberates, its forthcoming advisory opinion may greatly influence global policy responses to the ongoing climate crisis, prompting accountability and action from all States involved.
Original Source: sdg.iisd.org
