The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently concluded two weeks of hearings that may significantly influence the future of global climate change litigation. The hearings, which will culminate in an advisory opinion in 2025, address two central questions: whether nations have a legal obligation to fight climate change, and whether large industrialized nations, the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, should be held accountable for the damage caused to smaller, climate-vulnerable nations. The case represents a landmark moment in the global climate debate, highlighting the tension between rich nations, which contribute the most to global emissions, and the developing nations, particularly small island states, that suffer the consequences of climate change.

At the heart of the arguments presented during the hearings were differing perspectives on how the legal framework for addressing climate change should be structured. Wealthier nations, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and several EU countries, emphasized the importance of adhering to existing international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement. These treaties, which are largely non-binding, aim to limit global temperature increases to well below 2°C, with a more ambitious target of 1.5°C. However, critics, particularly from small island states like Vanuatu, argue that these agreements have failed to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For example, despite the Paris Agreement’s goals, climate models suggest that global temperatures could rise by as much as 3°C by the end of the century, putting vulnerable nations at extreme risk of flooding, drought, and other climate-induced disasters.

Payam Akhavan, a lawyer representing these island states, made a compelling case during the hearings, pointing out the failure of the Paris Agreement to produce enforceable results. His statements highlight the stark contrast between the ambitious promises made by large emitters and the real-world impacts of climate change already being felt by the most vulnerable populations. Akhavan’s remarks underline the urgent need for more concrete, legally binding commitments that would require wealthy nations to take responsibility for their environmental impact and assist those suffering the worst effects.

The ICJ’s advisory opinion, although non-binding, will carry significant weight, potentially setting a legal precedent in climate-related lawsuits worldwide. The court’s opinion could provide important guidance for national courts grappling with climate-related cases, particularly in Europe, Latin America, and other regions where climate change litigation is on the rise. As noted by Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s Climate & Energy Program, the power of the ICJ’s opinion lies not just in its direct enforcement but in the broader political and legal message it sends. It could inspire further litigation in national courts, pushing for stronger legal obligations on states to reduce emissions and provide financial support to climate-impacted nations.

The case also highlights a key issue that has dominated the global climate conversation: the responsibility of major emitters to take meaningful action. While the ICJ cannot force countries to implement binding regulations, it can provide clarity on the legal obligations of nations to address climate harm. This is particularly important as many climate change initiatives, including the Paris Agreement’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), have been criticized for being voluntary and lacking enforceability. Countries are expected to update their NDCs periodically, but as representatives from Saudi Arabia and China pointed out during the hearings, these updates are framed as “best efforts,” not binding obligations.

The broader implications of this case echo several recent incidents where the global community has sought to address climate change through legal channels. One such example is the landmark 2021 case against Shell in the Netherlands, where the court ruled that the oil giant must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030, a decision that reverberated through the global business and legal sectors. Similarly, in 2019, the Urgenda Foundation won a case against the Dutch government, forcing it to adopt more ambitious climate policies. These rulings, while focused on corporations and national governments, reflect a growing trend of using the judiciary to hold entities accountable for environmental harm.

The ICJ’s opinion on the climate change obligations of nations will not only influence the legal framework for climate change mitigation but could also serve as a catalyst for broader environmental accountability in international law. While the advisory opinion is not binding, its potential to guide future litigation and shape political discourse cannot be underestimated. With increasing calls for binding commitments to limit emissions and financial reparations for climate harm, this case marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing fight against climate change. It serves as a reminder that the true costs of climate inaction will be borne by those least responsible, and that global responsibility must go beyond voluntary agreements to concrete, enforceable actions.

(Adapted from ThePrint.in)

Categories: Economy & Finance, Geopolitics, Regulations & Legal, Strategy, Sustainability