The ICJ held historic proceedings on climate change obligations from December 2, 2024, involving broad participation from States and organizations. Vanuatu spearheaded this effort to address international legal issues, leading to significant discourse on State accountability in mitigating climate change. The upcoming advisory opinion may have considerable implications for climate law, indicating a growing emphasis on collective action against climate threats.
On December 2, 2024, the Peace Palace commenced a historic two-week session where States and international organizations presented their perspectives on the obligations of States regarding climate change. Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group initiated the proceedings, emphasizing the involvement of youth in these critical discussions. This important event can be traced back to efforts by Vanuatu’s law students four years prior, who aimed to address climate change challenges effectively.
Vanuatu’s careful strategy involved collaborating with other UN Member States to seek the World Court’s advisory opinion on vital legal aspects of climate change obligations. The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted resolution 77/276 on March 29, 2023, marking the first similar consensus in 75 years. This set a significant precedent for the ICJ to consider climate change as a collective concern of humanity.
A remarkable feature of the proceedings was the unprecedented participation of 91 written statements and 107 oral submissions from various nations and organizations. Small island States, particularly those facing immediate threats from climate change and sea-level rise, actively engaged in these discussions, mirroring trends in other forums like the ITLOS. The representation from small island nations marks a new chapter in global climate advocacy.
Historically, small island States have led climate action since Malta first recognized climate change at the UN in 1988. In this session, 12 out of 18 Pacific Island States contributed written statements, demonstrating unity and urgency regarding climate challenges. Coastal nations, including Portugal and El Salvador, also recognized their vulnerabilities and participated in the advisory proceedings, highlighting a collective global effort.
During the hearings, all States acknowledged the reality of climate change caused by human activity. Notable was Saudi Arabia’s acknowledgment of urgent action needed to mitigate climate impacts. However, differences emerged regarding the source of legal obligations, with developed nations favoring climate treaties rather than broader international law principles. This divergence reflected underlying tensions in climate governance.
Discussions illuminated differing views on State obligations for climate change mitigation. Developed countries viewed compliance with national contributions as sufficient, whereas developing nations insisted that broader customary international laws and principles also apply to climate actions. Human rights implications of climate change received attention, particularly regarding vulnerable populations, although consensus on the legal obligations under existing human rights law was limited.
Significantly, Palestine raised concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions from armed conflicts, which have often been overlooked in climate discussions. Youth representation was prominently featured, reinforcing the importance of intergenerational perspectives in climate litigation. This participation underscores the vital role of upcoming generations in shaping climate policy and accountability.
The Court concluded the hearings by soliciting responses to four crucial queries regarding fossil fuels, treaty obligations, the right to a clean environment, and declarations related to the Paris Agreement. The subsequent submission of sixty-five written responses emphasizes the high stakes and expectations surrounding the Court’s advisory opinion on climate change.
As the ICJ deliberates, it carries the trust of youth and the weight of global expectations to clarify the obligations of States amid the planetary crisis created by climate change. The anticipated advisory opinion, while non-binding, is expected to have significant relevance and impact on international climate law and policy.
The ICJ’s recent sessions underscore the urgent need to clarify State obligations regarding climate change in response to widespread global participation. Notably, the engagement of small and vulnerable island states highlights the existential threats they face and their role in climate advocacy. The forthcoming advisory opinion promises to provide meaningful insights and guidelines for international climate action, reflecting the commitment of various nations to combat climate challenges together.
Original Source: sdg.iisd.org
