The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has begun hearings in the biggest climate change case ever, with more than 100 countries and non-governmental organisations calling for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect to climate change”.
The two-week hearing is the result of years of lobbying by island nations who face an existential threat in rising sea levels, a phenomenon driven by an ever-warming planet.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who heads the legal team for Vanuatu, told the AP that they “want the court to confirm that the conduct that has wrecked the climate is unlawful.” Vanuatu, a small island nation in the Pacific of around 300,000 people, will be the first to present arguments before the United Nation’s highest court.
Hearings will run until December 12 and a decision is not expected until 2025. While advisory opinions issued by the ICJ are non-binding, they are legally, morally and politically significant.
The landmark climate change case began with a group of 27 law school students at the University of South Pacific in Vanuatu. They hailed from different Pacific island nations, all among the most vulnerable to the worsening effects of climate change.
Solomon Yeo, a citizen of the Solomon Islands, hatched the idea with his classmates to change international law on climate change via the ICJ. Yeo, who now serves as the campaign director for the NGO created by the groups, Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, is attending the hearings at the Hague.
The hearing comes on the heels of an abysmal result at the recent COP29 summit, hosted in the petrostate of Azerbaijan, which saw the talks nearly collapse as fossil fuel interests loomed large and countries responsible for causing the calamitous rise in carbon dioxide levels resisted demands for financial support by nations threatened by their actions. Despite this, campaigners are quietly confident that their case at the Hague will be successful.
An advisory opinion from the ICJ would clarify legal questions related to climate change and have huge implications for litigation at the domestic, regional and international level.
“An ICJ decision carries huge weight and moral authority,” Cameron Diver, a Pacific legal expert, told the Guardian. “It would be the pinnacle of the international legal guidance that could be provided.”
Reacting to remarks of Australia and United States at the landmark ICJ Climate Case on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, Ralph Regenvanu, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment for The Republic of Vanuatu, stated: “Today, as sea levels rise and the impacts of climate change intensify, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. Climate change is an existential threat that transcends borders, affecting all nations regardless of political ideology or geographic location.
“We are obviously disappointed by the statements made by the governments of Australia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and China during the ICJ proceedings. These nations, some of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions.
“Let me be clear: these treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability. There needs to be an accounting for the failure to curb emissions and the climate change impacts and human rights violation that failure has generated.
“It is particularly concerning that some of these nations, upon whom we depend for aid and support, have not acknowledged the severity of the crisis or their responsibilities under international law. Our dependency on their assistance makes it all the more critical for them to act responsibly and in solidarity with vulnerable nations like ours.
“As we have argued before the Court, the conduct responsible for climate change is not just irresponsible – it is unlawful under a range of international obligations, including those under the law of the sea, human rights law, and environmental law. The destruction of Earth’s climate system constitutes an ongoing breach of international law, and it demands immediate legal recognition and cooperative measures to turn the tides, repair the harm, and protect our futures from further destruction.
“We hold hope that our former colonial powers, including France and the United Kingdom, will recognise the gravity of this moment and support our continued self-determination. Their support in the coming days could significantly affirm their commitment to solidarity, justice, and the rule of law.
“Our appeal is to all nations, especially those with the greatest capacity and historical responsibility, to align their actions with the principles of international law and the urgent needs of our shared planet. No country can afford to keep its head in the sand any longer. The time for decisive, legally grounded action is now.”
