The International Court of Justice held hearings in December 2023 on state obligations regarding climate change, responding to a UNGA request. The judges aimed to clarify financial liabilities and necessary actions to mitigate climate issues. Participants submitted sixty-four responses to questions posed by judges, reflecting varied perspectives on international climate law, particularly contrasting views between developed and developing nations.
From December 2 to December 13, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conducted oral hearings to assess the advisory opinion addressing the obligations of states regarding climate change, following a request from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The ICJ aims to clarify the financial responsibilities of nations for their contributions to climate change and the necessary actions they must undertake to mitigate its impact. Four judges posed follow-up questions to participants, who were required to submit their responses by December 20, leading to a total of sixty-four answers submitted.
Established in 1945 under the United Nations Charter, the ICJ serves as a judicial forum for resolving disputes between nations. Located in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ operates independently of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which deals with criminal matters. The Court comprises fifteen judges elected for nine-year terms, and currently, Judge Nawaf Salam of Lebanon serves as its President. Judges hail from various nations, including Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, and the United States.
The UNGA initiated the advisory opinion on March 29, 2023, at the instigation of Vanuatu, focusing on the legal obligations of states to prevent climate change, despite the non-binding nature of the opinions issued by the ICJ. The two posed questions probe both the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system and the legal repercussions for states whose actions have caused substantial environmental harm, especially concerning vulnerable countries and future generations.
During the hearings, Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group presented initial arguments, followed by representatives from over 100 nations providing oral statements. Notably, prior written arguments were submitted to the Court, with daily transcripts published on its website. Legal discussions referenced the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, with differing viewpoints emerging. Some large countries, such as the United States, asserted that the existence of specific treaties governs climate-related matters and precludes additional legal obligations. Conversely, developing nations countered that climate change impacts infringe upon human rights under international law, advocating for reparations to those adversely affected by environmental degradation.
President Salam indicated a structured process for questions, highlighting that judges would pose inquiries only after hearing oral arguments—unlike practices seen in appellate courts. The four judges who posed questions sought clarifications on several legal aspects, including the obligations of oil-producing nations, the binding nature of the Paris Agreement, and the potential right to a sustainable environment within international law. Responses to these inquiries were also published on the ICJ website, making the proceedings accessible to the public.
The advisory opinion process initiated by the ICJ highlights the increasing focus on legal accountability for climate change at an international level. The ICJ, as a Principle Judicial Body of the UN, has the authority to interpret international law concerning the protection of the climate and environmental obligations of states. The court’s examination of climate obligations is particularly significant as nations grapple with the multifaceted effects of climate change and environmental degradation, thus underscoring the need for legal frameworks that protect vulnerable populations and the environment.
The recent ICJ hearings address vital questions surrounding state obligations towards climate conservation and the prevention of harm due to greenhouse gas emissions. As over 100 countries contribute to the discourse, the outcomes of this advisory opinion may shape future international climate policy and legal accountability. The contrasting positions of large industrialized nations and developing countries reflect the complex landscape of climate justice, where the legality of state actions plays a central role in mitigating climate change effects.
Original Source: www.forbes.com
