The International Court of Justice held hearings from December 2 to 13, 2023, regarding the Obligations of States in Climate Change, requested by the UNGA. The Court seeks to clarify the legal responsibilities and actions required of nations to combat climate change. The hearings involved contributions from over 100 countries, culminating in sixty-four responses addressing critical legal queries posed by the Court.
Between December 2 and December 13, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conducted oral hearings regarding its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States concerning Climate Change, as requested by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The inquiry seeks to clarify the legal responsibilities of nations contributing to climate change and the necessary measures they must undertake to address this global crisis. Following the hearings, the Court received sixty-four written responses from various states by the December 20 deadline.
The ICJ, established in 1945 and often referred to as the World Court, is responsible for resolving legal disputes between states. Located in The Hague, Netherlands, it operates from the Peace Palace, alongside the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICJ comprises 15 judges elected to serve nine-year terms, with only one judge permitted from each nation. Currently, the Court is presided over by Judge Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, with judges elected from diverse countries including Australia, China, and the United States.
On March 29, 2023, Vanuatu prompted the UNGA to request the ICJ’s opinion on the legal obligations of states to prevent climate change. Although this opinion is non-binding, it could have significant implications for future climate-related litigation and legislative initiatives. The UNGA posed two critical questions regarding states’ responsibilities under international law to protect the climate and the consequent legal ramifications of their actions that negatively impact vulnerable states and generations to come.
The hearings commenced with an opening argument presented by Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Representatives from over 100 countries delivered oral statements in structured time slots. These formal submissions included pre-prepared written documents, with verbatim transcripts published on the ICJ’s website. The legal discussions focused primarily on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. Major countries argued that the treaty specific to climate change supersedes other international obligations, suggesting that no additional responsibilities exist for reparations beyond those agreed upon in negotiations.
Conversely, developing nations contend that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement serve merely as foundational frameworks. They assert that the adverse effects of climate change infringe upon human rights, as outlined in international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consequently, they advocate for reparations from contributing nations for harm inflicted on low-lying and developing countries.
In her opening statement, President Salam elaborated on the question protocol, emphasizing that judges would reserve inquiries until the conclusion of the statements. The judges submitted their questions in writing, allowing participants until December 20 to respond. Notably, the questions posed by the judges centered on the obligations of oil-producing nations, the binding nature of the Paris Agreement, the recognition of a right to a sustainable environment, and the implications of the Paris Agreement on existing compensation frameworks.
A total of sixty-four nations and organizations, including the African Union, the European Union, and various small island states, participated in providing answers to the judges’ queries, with responses made publicly accessible on the ICJ’s website. This comprehensive engagement illustrates the wide-reaching implications of climate change on international law and the pressing need to define state responsibilities in addressing this critical global challenge.
The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ highlights the urgent need for clarity concerning the legal obligations of states to combat climate change. Given the increasing impact of climate-related disasters, the UNGA’s directive seeks to explore the consequences of state actions leading to environmental degradation and their liabilities under international law. This initiative is particularly pivotal for vulnerable countries that disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change effects, thus calling into question the adequacy of existing legal frameworks and the potential for new reparative measures.
The ICJ’s recent hearings on climate change responsibilities mark a significant step in addressing global environmental issues through international law. With states actively participating in the process, the Court is poised to shape future legal interpretations regarding climate liabilities and obligations. As the world grapples with the ongoing climate crisis, the outcomes of this advisory opinion could greatly influence both legal precedent and national policies aimed at fostering climate justice and accountability.
Original Source: www.forbes.com
