A group of small island nations led by Vanuatu is urging the world’s top court to hold the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries accountable for failing to tackle climate change. The case involves nearly 100 countries and is being heard by 15 judges at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice in the Netherlands.
“These ICJ proceedings … mark a historic moment for climate justice with unprecedented participation that reflects the urgency of addressing ongoing climate destruction,” Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, the lead counsel for Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, a regional subgroup that includes Papua New Guinea, Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, said at a press briefing.
The island nations argue that just a few countries have produced the “vast majority” of historic and current greenhouse gas emissions, yet nations that emit very little, such as Vanuatu, face the brunt of the consequences.
They’re seeking the court’s legal opinion on two questions: What are the obligations of governments under international law to protect the planet’s climate system and environment? And what are the legal consequences for countries that have caused significant harm to the climate, environment and people?
“Today we find ourselves on the front lines of a crisis we did not create,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and the environment, told the ICJ. “The importance of the questions before this Court cannot be overstated.”
Vanuatu and others argue that climate-specific treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, aren’t sufficient to tackle climate change. The main emitters have failed to rein in their emissions and have even expanded fossil fuel extraction and use despite knowing its harms, they say. They argue this compels the court to draw from other international laws governing the protection of the environment and human rights that are also relevant to climate change, to give its opinion.
The ICJ’s advisory opinions are nonbinding. But they have the “potential to establish and clarify” governments’ obligations and consequences for climate harm, Wewerinke-Singh said at the briefing.
Regenvanu added that other courts can then draw from these clarifications, and there’s a possibility for governments to change and pay heed to the ICJ’s opinion.
Big emitters like the U.S and Germany argued the ICJ shouldn’t consider non-climate legislation.
“[T]he Paris Agreement at its core, is the only international legal régime specifically designed by States to address climate change,” Margaret Taylor, legal adviser representing the U.S., told the court.
Germany added that the Paris Agreement strikes “a careful balance between legally binding clauses and non-binding political commitments,” without which states may be unwilling to engage in the political processes needed to fight climate change.
Calling these statements disappointing, Regenvanu said the nations were pointing to treaties and commitments “that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions.”
The submissions before the ICJ began on Dec. 2 and will continue until Dec. 13. The court is expected to deliver its advisory opinion in early 2025.
Banner image courtesy of Greenpeace.
Credits
