The world’s top court has finished hearing its largest-ever climate change case.
For the first time, 96 countries and 11 international organizations presented their cases before the U.N.’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) from Dec. 2-13, arguing about the obligations of major greenhouse gas-emitting nations in tackling climate change, and the legal frameworks that could hold them accountable for the climate-related harms they’ve caused.
Several countries from the Global South, including small island nations like Vanuatu, Timor-Leste and Tuvalu, argued that climate change has put their existence at risk. They highlighted that a handful of industrialized nations have been responsible for the climate crisis yet have doubled down on fossil fuel extraction and use. Countries including Zambia added that climate change has touched “every aspect” of their economy.
The plaintiffs said that existing climate frameworks governing climate change responsibilities, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, have failed to be effective. Instead, they urged the ICJ to go beyond these frameworks and draw from other international environment and human rights laws that are also relevant to climate change, while giving its advisory opinion in early 2025.
“This landmark case has shown a shared determination from representatives across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Pacific Island States and even a few European States to uphold and apply the rule of international law in the context of climate change,” Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general for the Republic of Vanuatu, said in a statement.
Several youth climate groups, such as Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and the World’s Youth for Climate Justice, and international organizations like the IUCN also urged the court to consider the testimonies of those facing the worst climate consequences and to protect current and future generations.
Major emitters like the U.S., U.K., Germany, Saudi Arabia and China argued that the ICJ wasn’t the right platform to clarify climate obligations and consequences. They added that the existing climate change frameworks and treaties were adequate and that additional legal liabilities could discourage countries from participating in the climate processes.
However, the “fossil fuel giants and major polluters found themselves isolated in their attempts to sweep their historical responsibility for the climate crisis under the rug and claim that their legal obligations start and end with the Paris Agreement,” Nikki Reisch, director of the Climate and Energy Program, Center for International Environmental Law, said in a press briefing.
“The majority of states agree: making empty promises at the annual climate talks doesn’t cut it, and no amount of emphasis on ‘cooperation’ can make up for individual states’ failure to uphold their duties to respect and protect human rights and the environment,” Reisch added. “There is no greater betrayal of solidarity than continuing to destroy the climate on which we all depend.”
Banner image: Small island nations led by Vanuatu drove the climate change case at the International Court of Justice. Image courtesy of Ben Bohane.
Credits
