The ICJ hearings on climate change obligations commenced, featuring a historic number of participants, including youth representatives. The initiative originated from Vanuatu students seeking accountability, culminating in a UN resolution for the ICJ’s advisory opinion. Key debates emerged on the source of climate obligations among developed and developing states, highlighting emerging divisions and urgent calls for legal clarity.
On December 2, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) commenced important hearings concerning States’ obligations regarding climate change, viewed as a severe threat to humanity. The proceedings began with statements from Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which included representatives from youth, highlighting the significant impact of climate issues on future generations.
This momentous initiative originated nearly four years prior when law students from Vanuatu sought to raise awareness of climate change challenges. In contrast to earlier unsuccessful appeals by other nations, Vanuatu rallied support from various UN member states and successfully prompted the UN General Assembly to adopt resolution 77/276 on March 29, 2023, calling for an advisory opinion from the ICJ.
The participation rate at these hearings was unprecedented, with ninety-one written statements and 107 oral submissions received from various countries and organizations, signifying broad global concern about climate change. Importantly, this engagement featured a high representation of small island nations, reflecting their vulnerability to rising sea levels and other climate-related threats.
The science behind climate change received unanimous agreement, with no challenges presented regarding its human-induced nature. While states recognized fundamental international environmental law principles, they debated the application of these principles to climate change obligations. Divergence of opinion arose particularly between developed and developing nations regarding whether climate action obligations stem exclusively from treaties or encompass broader international law sources.
Developed states, including the United States and Australia, maintained that climate obligations were primarily treaty-based. Conversely, developing countries asserted that customary international law applies, reflecting a critical divide on the responsibilities for climate dependence. Additionally, discussions surfaced around the human rights implications tied to climate change for vulnerable populations, though views varied on existing legal obligations under human rights law.
Palestine shifted the dialogue by highlighting greenhouse gas emissions linked to armed conflict, an often-overlooked aspect of climate discussions. During the hearings, the voices of youth were notably emphasized, marking an important moment in the legal proceedings. Concluding the hearings, the ICJ judges posed several pivotal questions regarding climate change and international law.
As ICJ judges deliberate, they carry the expectation of providing substantial legal clarity regarding state obligations in the face of climate change. While the advisory opinion will not be binding, its influence on global climate policy and state accountability is anticipated to be significant, underscoring the urgency of actionable responses to the climate crisis.
The recent advisory opinion hearings at the ICJ represent a significant turning point in addressing international climate obligations. With unprecedented participation, particularly from vulnerable states and youth, the proceedings reflect a collective global awareness and urgency regarding climate change. The opinions formed will likely shape future international law concerning states’ responsibilities to combat climate change and protect human rights.
Original Source: sdg.iisd.org
