By Stephanie van den Berg
THE HAGUE (Reuters) – The International Court of Justice wrapped up hearings on Friday regarding countries’ legal duty to combat climate change and the potential liability of major greenhouse gas emitters for damage inflicted on small island nations.
The World Court is set to deliver an opinion on these crucial matters, expected in 2025, which could have far-reaching implications for climate change-related legal battles across the globe.
Over the course of two weeks of deliberations, wealthier nations from the global north contended that existing climate agreements, such as the non-binding Paris Agreement, should serve as the foundation for determining countries’ responsibilities.
Conversely, developing countries and small island states, which are disproportionately affected by climate change, pushed for more stringent measures to reduce emissions and regulate financial assistance from affluent polluting nations.
“The Paris Agreement has been hailed as the solution, but vulnerable states have turned to the court because the agreement has fallen short,” noted Payam Akhavan, a legal representative for small island nations, pointing to forecasts projecting a 3°C temperature increase by 2100 instead of the targeted 1.5°C (2.7°F).
Close to 100 states and organizations participated in the hearings at the ICJ, the primary U.N. court for inter-state disputes, where small island nations spearheaded the campaign to seek an advisory opinion from the U.N. General Assembly.
While World Court opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal and political weight. Experts believe that the court’s ruling on climate change could establish a precedent for climate-related lawsuits in courts worldwide, from Europe to Latin America and beyond.
‘CLEAR MESSAGE’
“The influence of an ICJ opinion does not solely stem from its direct enforcement but from the clear guidance it will provide to the numerous courts worldwide grappling with the issue of state obligations in addressing the climate crisis and rectifying climate-related harm,” stated Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s Climate & Energy Program, in an interview with Reuters.
The hearings commenced in early December with Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation, urging judges to acknowledge and remedy the damage caused by climate change.
Major emitters like the U.S. and China, along with countries such as Saudi Arabia and various EU members, argued in favor of utilizing existing U.N.-backed climate treaties, which are predominantly non-binding, as the yardstick for determining states’ duties.
“China anticipates that the court will endorse the U.N. climate change negotiations mechanism as the principal avenue for global climate governance,” remarked Ma Xinmin, a legal adviser in China’s foreign ministry, during the proceedings.
As per the Paris Agreement, countries are required to update their national climate plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), every few years, with the next round due by February 2025.
The UN has urged nations to submit comprehensive plans demonstrating an increased, though non-binding, ambition to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F).
“NDCs pertain to an obligation of best efforts, rather than outcomes,” clarified a representative from the Saudi Ministry of Energy, raising concerns among proponents of binding regulations to curb fossil fuel consumption.
Analysis:
The conclusion of the World Court hearings on countries’ legal responsibilities in combatting climate change and holding major emitters accountable could have profound implications for global climate action. The potential precedent set by the court’s opinion may influence climate-related litigation worldwide, impacting everything from government policies to corporate practices. Individuals and businesses alike should pay close attention to these developments, as they could shape future regulations and initiatives aimed at addressing the climate crisis.