The ICJ held hearings in December for an Advisory Opinion on states’ obligations regarding climate change, responding to a UNGA request. It aims to clarify financial liabilities for climate contributions and required actions. Judges posed questions necessitating written responses by December 20, with the final opinion projected for 2025.
In December, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conducted oral hearings for its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States regarding Climate Change, initiated by a request from the United Nations General Assembly. The Court will clarify the financial liabilities of nations contributing to climate change and outline necessary actions to mitigate it. Following the hearings, several judges posed questions to the participants, requiring responses by December 20, with the final opinion expected between mid to late 2025.
The ICJ, commonly known as the World Court, was established in 1945 as the principal judicial authority for resolving disputes between nations. It operates independently from other judicial entities, such as the International Criminal Court, and consists of 15 judges elected to serve a nine-year term. Currently presiding over the Court is Judge Nawaf Salam from Lebanon, alongside judges from various countries including the United States, China, and South Africa.
The UN General Assembly, responding to a petition from Vanuatu, requested the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion concerning nations’ obligations to combat climate change. Although non-binding, this opinion will help shape future legal interpretations regarding climate-related disputes. The Assembly presented two primary questions regarding the responsibilities of states to protect the climate for current and future generations, and the legal repercussions for those causing significant environmental harm.
During the hearings that took place from December 2 to 13, representatives from over 100 countries articulated their legal positions regarding the obligations under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. While major economies like the United States and Australia suggested that existing climate treaties supersede other related international laws, developing nations countered that these treaties represent just the beginning in addressing human rights violations stemming from climate change.
Judge Salam outlined that any inquiries from the judges would be submitted in writing after the oral presentations concluded. The questions posed by Judges Sarah Cleveland, Dire Tladi, Bogdan-Lucian Auresco, and Hilary Charlesworth focused on issues such as the legal ramifications of fossil fuel production, the interpretation of obligations outlined in the Paris Agreement, the right to a clean environment, and the principles underlying state declarations regarding climate treaty compliance.
The advisory opinion sought from the ICJ is rooted in increasing international concern regarding climate change and the accountability of nations. The request from the UNGA highlights a legal framework that seeks to define and clarify the responsibilities of states under current global treaties addressing climate change. It aims to explore how historical and current emissions, primarily from developed countries, impact vulnerable states and populations, particularly considering human rights perspectives and future sustainability efforts.
The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on climate change marks a significant step towards defining legal obligations for nations in combating climate change. With an emphasis on accountability for environmental degradation, the outcomes could profoundly influence international climate policy and reparations. The Court’s careful consideration of the presented legal arguments will likely shape the landscape of climate change jurisprudence in the years to come.
Original Source: www.forbes.com
