The ICJ convened a significant two-week session starting December 2, 2024, focusing on State obligations regarding climate change. Following years of advocacy led by Vanuatu, this initiative garnered unprecedented participation, emphasizing the gravity of the climate crisis. Extensive discussions highlighted divergent views between developed and developing nations on applicable laws and obligations, particularly regarding human rights implications and the responsibilities surrounding climate mitigation efforts.
On December 2, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) engaged in a historic two-week session, where 15-member States and international organizations expressed their views on climate change obligations. The proceedings commenced with statements from Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, prominently featuring youth representation. This initiative, rooted four years ago in Vanuatu by law students, followed past unsuccessful efforts and aimed to legally address critical climate obligations after the UN General Assembly’s consensus adoption of Resolution 77/276 seeking an ICJ advisory opinion on climate change obligations.
The unprecedented number of participating States and organizations underscored the significance of these proceedings. Ninety-one written statements and 62 written comments were submitted, alongside 107 oral submissions, showcasing broad engagement. Notably, small island states, threatened by climate change and rising seas, actively participated alongside regions representing Africa, Latin America, North America, Europe, and the Pacific, emphasizing the global nature of the climate crisis.
The proceedings highlighted a consensus among states regarding human-induced climate change and the urgent need for action. Saudi Arabia, despite its oil interests, acknowledged the urgency of mitigating climate effects. While foundational principles of international environmental law received agreement, discussions ensued over their applicability to climate change obligations, resulting in divergent views particularly between developed and developing nations regarding interpretations of applicable law and responsibilities.
At the center of debate was the obligation of States regarding climate change mitigation. Developing nations argued for a broader interpretation of legal obligations beyond existing climate treaties. Furthermore, discussions around the human rights implications of climate change emerged, particularly concerning vulnerable populations, though the extent of obligations from existing human rights laws was contested amongst participants.
In a significant move, Palestine introduced the perspective of armed conflict and its contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, a relatively unvoiced concern in the climate discourse. The proceedings also witnessed representatives of youth bringing their concerns directly into the hearings. As the Court closed the sessions, judges posed critical legal questions, demonstrating their engagement with these pivotal issues.
As deliberations continue, the burden lies with the judges of the ICJ to provide legal clarity on State obligations concerning climate change. This non-binding advisory opinion is anticipated to influence future policymaking, legal standards, and international accountability amidst escalating climate concerns.
The ICJ’s recent sessions marked a pivotal engagement on the legal responsibilities of States regarding climate change. With participation from a diverse array of nations, particularly vulnerable island States, the discourse emphasized the urgent need for clarity on climate obligations. The anticipated advisory opinion is expected to significantly impact international discussions and policymaking as countries strive to address the climate crisis effectively.
Original Source: sdg.iisd.org
