The ICJ is currently reviewing obligations of States in relation to climate change at the request of the UNGA. Oral hearings were held in December 2023, with over 100 countries participating. The court will determine States’ financial responsibilities and actions necessary to combat climate change, influenced by questions from judges. Responses are due by December 20, with final opinions expected by 2025.
In early December 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conducted oral hearings for its Advisory Opinion concerning States’ obligations regarding climate change, following a request from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The foremost objective of these proceedings is to ascertain the financial liabilities of nations for their contributions to climate change and the required actions to mitigate it. Notably, at the conclusion of the hearings, four judges presented questions to the participants, with responses due by December 20.
Established in 1945 under the UN Charter, the ICJ serves as a mediator for legal disputes between countries. Officially known as the World Court, it is situated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The court consists of 15 judges representing various nations, elected to serve nine-year terms. The current President of the Court is Judge Nawaf Salam from Lebanon, with additional judges from countries including Australia, Brazil, and the United States.
The advisory opinion stems from a request made by Vanuatu in March 2023, asking the ICJ to examine the legal responsibilities of countries in combating climate change. Although the final opinion will not be legally binding, it is expected to influence future climate litigation and legislative measures. The UNGA posed two significant questions regarding State obligations related to greenhouse gas emissions and the consequences of actions that cause significant harm to vulnerable populations.
The hearings commenced on December 2, with over 100 countries presenting their arguments from December 2 to 13. The written and oral statements referenced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, with larger nations contending that specialized treaties take precedence over general international law regarding climate change responsibilities. Conversely, developing countries argue that climate change infringes upon human rights, positing that those responsible for greenhouse gas emissions should offer reparations to afflicted nations.
In the initial statements, President Salam outlined the protocol for addressing questions from the judges. Unlike the practice in some judicial systems, ICJ judges reserved their inquiries until the end of the proceedings. The follow-up questions were submitted on December 13 with a deadline for responses set for December 20. The inquiries covered issues such as States’ obligations regarding fossil fuels, the interpretation of the Paris Agreement, and the right to a clean environment.
The ongoing legal discourse regarding climate change and international law has gained the attention of the International Court of Justice due to the pressing need for clarity on State responsibilities in relation to environmental protection. Climate change poses unprecedented risks, particularly for small island developing States and vulnerable populations. The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ highlights the international community’s desire for legal frameworks that mandate accountability and action against climate harms, thereby acknowledging the intersection of environmental health and human rights. This case marks a significant moment for international climate law, as it is poised to establish precedents that could shape future legal obligations amidst the climate crisis.
In conclusion, the International Court of Justice is addressing critical questions regarding State obligations in the realm of climate change, as requested by the UNGA. The outcomes of the proceedings will not only clarify existing international liabilities but also provide a framework for future legislation and climate action. The divergence in perspectives between developed and developing nations underscores the complexities of global climate governance. While the advisory opinion will be non-binding, its implications for future climate litigation and legislative efforts are anticipated to be significant.
Original Source: www.forbes.com
