THE HAGUE, Netherlands — During a landmark hearing at the International Court of Justice, a representative for the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu issued a stark warning about the impact of climate change. Phillipa Webb emphasized that Tuvalu, facing the looming threat of rising sea levels, will not fade into oblivion without a fight. Her remarks were part of two weeks of significant hearings that concluded recently, as the court grappled with the complex issue of climate change and its global implications.
This case, the largest in the court’s history, was initiated at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, which sought to clarify the responsibilities of nations worldwide in tackling climate change and assisting those most affected by its consequences. Tuvalu, alongside other small island nations concerned about their survival, urged the U.N. to seek an advisory opinion from the court.
Throughout the proceedings, representatives from 96 nations and 11 international organizations participated, many of whom had never engaged with the court before. While the anticipated outcome of the hearings remains uncertain, climate policy experts view the discussions as a pivotal moment for addressing human rights and climate accountability. Nikki Reisch, director of climate policy at the Center for International Environmental Law, described the hearings as a significant step forward in the fight for climate justice.
The court is tasked with answering critical questions related to international obligations to protect the climate, particularly in light of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity. Additionally, the court will consider the legal ramifications for governments that have negligently contributed to climate change.
Countries like Tuvalu, along with Chile and the Philippines, are advocating for major polluters such as the United States, China, and Russia to significantly reduce their emissions and provide financial assistance to mitigate the effects of climate change that threaten their survival. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, representing Vanuatu, expressed the desire for a definitive ruling declaring that actions leading to climate change violate international law.
Although any ruling made by the court would offer non-binding guidance and cannot compel wealthier nations to act, it would carry significant weight, potentially serving as a foundation for future legal actions, including national lawsuits. Reisch argued that, far from being just a symbolic gesture, a decision from the court would offer an authoritative interpretation of international law that could incentivize action against non-compliant countries.
On the other hand, nations with substantial greenhouse gas emissions, such as the United States, have pushed for adherence to the Paris Agreement. They argue that this international framework is designed to manage the complex challenge of climate change and represents a clear commitment from nations to abide by environmental laws.
Since the pre-industrial era, global temperatures have increased by approximately 1.3 degrees Celsius due to fossil fuel consumption, and sea levels rose by an average of 10 centimeters between 1990 and 2020, with certain regions in the South Pacific experiencing even greater increases. A majority of the nations participating in the hearings expressed that the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement fall short of what is necessary for their protection.
The court’s fifteen judges are now tasked with evaluating the submissions presented during the hearings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the judges posed questions to the participants, who have until the end of the year to provide responses. Typically, the court takes about six months to deliver its opinion; however, given the scope of this case, a ruling may not be expected until late 2025.
