THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The first week of an influential international climate case commenced at the United Nations’ highest court in The Hague, where legal arguments are being made that could outline the responsibilities of nations in the fight against climate change. Although the outcome will not be legally binding, it is anticipated that the tribunal’s opinion will clarify what obligations countries have in confronting climate challenges and in assisting vulnerable nations impacted by these issues.
This case, propelled largely by requests from island nations suffering from rising seas, reflects a growing international call for accountability in mitigating climate change. Last year, the U.N. General Assembly sought the court’s insights into “the obligations of States in respect of climate change,” highlighting the urgency felt by nations like Vanuatu, which risks losing its land and livelihood due to climate impacts.
“The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” stated Arnold Kiel Loughman, the attorney general of Vanuatu, during the session. His nation has long led advocacy efforts for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the melting ice caps and subsequent sea level rise. Vanuatu’s push for a legal examination in this sphere has been a pivotal aspect of its climate strategy.
The court is tasked with addressing two critical questions: What legal duties do nations have under international law regarding the reduction of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, and what repercussions do governments face if their actions or inactions lead to significant environmental damage? With participation from 99 countries, this case is noted as the most significant in the court’s history.
Countries such as Vanuatu, Chile, and the Philippines are urging major emitters like the United States, China, and Russia to not only cut down their emissions but also provide financial support to help mitigate the severe impacts of climate change, which they argue threaten their very survival.
“This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity. Fiji contributes 0.004 percent of global emissions but our people bear the brunt of climate impacts,” remarked Luke Daunivalu, the Fijian ambassador to the United Nations, emphasizing the disproportionate burden placed on marginalized communities in vulnerable nations.
Following remarks from the United States and Russia, both of which hold significant fossil fuel production portfolios and are resistant to additional regulations on emissions, Daunivalu’s statements underscored the need for accountability from major powers regarding climate change.
Instead of enforcing new mandates, the U.S. and other principal contributors propose that the court acknowledges the existing framework established by the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Currently, the Earth’s temperature has increased by 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion. Global sea levels rose by an average of 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) between 1990 and 2020, with the South Pacific experiencing even higher increases.
“The international legal framework was crafted to tackle the complex challenge posed by human-induced global warming and reflects the most coherent and updated agreement among states on their climate obligations,” noted Margaret Taylor, representing the United States and referencing the Paris Agreement.
In addition, the U.S. countered suggestions from certain countries that developed nations bear a higher responsibility for emissions reductions and should provide reparations, arguing that a state cannot be held liable for actions that occurred before its legal obligations were established.
Small states like Vanuatu seek to create a shift in international legal norms, advocating for differentiated standards of responsibility for climate actions. Historically, international agreements have held all countries to the same legal expectations, similar to obligations outlined in the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, expressed concern over major polluters’ attempts to avoid accountability, asserting that their actions leading to the climate crisis are in violation of various international laws.
Meanwhile, several organizations advocating for climate justice organized events coinciding with the hearings. Participants, including the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, held a gathering promoting awareness through speeches, music, and discussions prior to the court proceedings.
Kjelld Kroon, a climate activist involved in a lawsuit against the Dutch government for inadequate climate safeguards for his homeland, remarked on the proceedings he observed, noting the resistance from wealthy nations to embrace additional responsibilities. “This is how a lot of powerful countries in the Global North extract from the Global South,” he stated.
Nevertheless, Kroon found inspiration in the compelling arguments made by numerous developing states, which reignited his hope for the future. Although any ruling from the court may not compel immediate actions from wealthy states, it could pave the way for subsequent legal actions, including domestic lawsuits.’
“If I look at history, I am skeptical,” Kroon remarked. “But if I look towards the future, I am a little bit positive.”
