By Anjali Sharma
UNITED NATIONS – UN International Court of Justice SAID ON Monday that it held historic hearings from 2 to 13 December addressed States’ obligations under international law to combat climate change, a process spearheaded by small island nations facing existential threats.
It was initiated by a UNGA resolution, the proceedings involved 96 countries and 11 regional organizations presenting their views on the “obligations of States with regard to climate change” under international law.
ICJ advisory opinion will be non-binding, it is expected to shape the future of international climate law.
The hearings opened with an appeal from Vanuatu and Melanesian Spearhead Group, representing nations most vulnerable to climate change.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change said “The outcome of these historic proceedings will have repercussions for generations to come, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet”.
It highlighted the catastrophic impacts of rising seas and extreme weather, calling the failures of high-emitting States “illicit”.
Attorney General Arnold Kiel Loughman of Vanuatu argued that “the failure of a handful of high-emitting states to meet their obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act,” as they have brought humanity “to the brink of the abyss.”
Small island developing States represented by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), echoed these calls.
They asked the World Court to affirm principles of international law that address sea-level rise, including the recognition of maritime zones and statehood even if territories are inundated.
Brazil highlighted its commitment to ambitious emissions reductions, stressing that despite being a developing country, it faces significant challenges like poverty eradication and extreme climate impacts.
The special envoy on climate change, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado, underscored the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, asserting that high-emitting developed countries bear the greatest burden in addressing the crisis.
China urged the ICJ to avoid creating new legal obligations and focus on existing frameworks such as the Paris Agreement on climate change.
China as one of the world’s largest emitters, argued that developed nations must bear historical responsibility, while developing countries require longer timelines to meet climate goals.
United States acknowledged the severity of the climate crisis but argued that international treaties like the Paris Agreement are not legally binding.
Margaret Taylor, the US representative rejected the notion that “common but differentiated responsibilities” is a fundamental principle of international law.
European Union emphasized cooperation and stressed the non-adversarial nature of the advisory proceedings.
EU representatives pointed to the importance of existing treaties in addressing climate change but stopped short of calling for enforcement mechanisms.
The nations and observers await its advisory opinion, expected to guide future legal interpretations of States’ responsibilities for the climate crisis.
Small island nations and vulnerable communities, the stakes are existential, the delegates stated.
Comments are closed.