SHORT ARTICLES
Bringing Climate Change to the International Court of Justice: A Milestone for Climate Justice
In March 2023, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed a resolution to request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to outline each country’s obligations in regard to combatting climate change. Advocated for since 2021 by the Pacific island state Vanuatu, the initial campaign for the resolution was led by Pacific Island Students Fight Climate Change (PISFCC) and gained greater traction from there. The students aimed to raise awareness of the plights faced by the Pacific Island states and to emphasize the necessity of each country fulfilling its climate obligations.
This marks the beginning of a historical moment, as it is the first time that the ICJ is going to advise countries on their legal obligations concerning climate change. Though the advisory opinion given is not legally binding, it does indeed have legal significance on an international scale. The ICJ is to clarify the climate obligations and rights of each state in black-and-white terms, based on the binding international laws of today, which provides legal backing to the climate obligations of each state. The advisory opinion is to be rendered in accordance with the following question:
(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;
(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?
If we take those majorly industrialized and densely populated countries as one extreme, the other is some of the island states spread across the different oceans. Examples include the island nations in the Pacific such as Palau, Micronesia, and Vanuatu. These Pacific island states are extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change, especially the rising of sea levels, as most of them are low-lying. The lives of island inhabitants are increasingly threatened by the diminishing amount of land available for housing and farming. Climate change is not just something that is worrying for such people but is an ongoing crisis that is challenging their survival and eroding their basic rights to life. Ironically, these islands are also only responsible for 0.03% of greenhouse gas emissions, in contrast to the top 10 emitters that contribute to more than 60% of the emissions globally. In simple terms, these developing countries are the smallest contributors to climate change yet are suffering its worst consequences brought on by the major emitters. This is the definition of climate injustice.
In the past, the Paris Agreement declared a global effort to limit the rise of global surface temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, this global agreement does not come with legal obligations that clarify the consequences a country will face if it neglects the actions required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a national level or even engages in activities that are actively harmful to the environment.
In contrast, bringing the issue of climate change, in such a manner, to the ICJ signifies formal acknowledgment of the existing climate injustice in countries around the world. This opens up the possibility of better defining what a fair share is for each country’s climate obligations and the corresponding mechanisms in place to ensure that every country is fully committed to global climate action. This makes climate action more an achievable necessity than an afterthought. That’s the reason why Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau of Vanuatu stated the following in a statement for the UN: “Vanuatu sees [the] historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making.”
The concept of “saving our planet together” should not just be a hollow slogan but a sentiment that is reflected in our actual actions. “The more you pollute, the more you pay” is a basic principle that everyone can understand. The issues caused by the major emitters should at no point become a heavy and unreasonable burden on struggling nations, particularly to the extent that their people’s well-being and basic survival are compromised. Major polluters should pay more instead of expecting minor emitters to share the cost equally. Referring the issue to the ICJ is not the final solution to the global threat of climate change. Nonetheless, the ICJ’s advisory opinion should give a clear definition of each country’s legal obligations and how international law can play its role in supervising each country’s progress under this collaborative climate campaign. The advisory opinion is expected to be delivered in 2025, and the dedication of each country toward the stated obligations will then ultimately determine the success of our fight against climate change.
This marks the beginning of a historical moment, as it is the first time that the ICJ is going to advise countries on their legal obligations concerning climate change. Though the advisory opinion given is not legally binding, it does indeed have legal significance on an international scale. The ICJ is to clarify the climate obligations and rights of each state in black-and-white terms, based on the binding international laws of today, which provides legal backing to the climate obligations of each state. The advisory opinion is to be rendered in accordance with the following question:
(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;
(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?
If we take those majorly industrialized and densely populated countries as one extreme, the other is some of the island states spread across the different oceans. Examples include the island nations in the Pacific such as Palau, Micronesia, and Vanuatu. These Pacific island states are extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change, especially the rising of sea levels, as most of them are low-lying. The lives of island inhabitants are increasingly threatened by the diminishing amount of land available for housing and farming. Climate change is not just something that is worrying for such people but is an ongoing crisis that is challenging their survival and eroding their basic rights to life. Ironically, these islands are also only responsible for 0.03% of greenhouse gas emissions, in contrast to the top 10 emitters that contribute to more than 60% of the emissions globally. In simple terms, these developing countries are the smallest contributors to climate change yet are suffering its worst consequences brought on by the major emitters. This is the definition of climate injustice.
In the past, the Paris Agreement declared a global effort to limit the rise of global surface temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, this global agreement does not come with legal obligations that clarify the consequences a country will face if it neglects the actions required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a national level or even engages in activities that are actively harmful to the environment.
In contrast, bringing the issue of climate change, in such a manner, to the ICJ signifies formal acknowledgment of the existing climate injustice in countries around the world. This opens up the possibility of better defining what a fair share is for each country’s climate obligations and the corresponding mechanisms in place to ensure that every country is fully committed to global climate action. This makes climate action more an achievable necessity than an afterthought. That’s the reason why Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau of Vanuatu stated the following in a statement for the UN: “Vanuatu sees [the] historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making.”
The concept of “saving our planet together” should not just be a hollow slogan but a sentiment that is reflected in our actual actions. “The more you pollute, the more you pay” is a basic principle that everyone can understand. The issues caused by the major emitters should at no point become a heavy and unreasonable burden on struggling nations, particularly to the extent that their people’s well-being and basic survival are compromised. Major polluters should pay more instead of expecting minor emitters to share the cost equally. Referring the issue to the ICJ is not the final solution to the global threat of climate change. Nonetheless, the ICJ’s advisory opinion should give a clear definition of each country’s legal obligations and how international law can play its role in supervising each country’s progress under this collaborative climate campaign. The advisory opinion is expected to be delivered in 2025, and the dedication of each country toward the stated obligations will then ultimately determine the success of our fight against climate change.
