In November, government leaders convened in Azerbaijan for COP 29, the international climate conference where the world’s nations are supposed to be applying themselves to addressing the climate crisis. As has been the case at COP after COP, negotiations broke down and the conference ended on an unsatisfying note, with a climate finance agreement that many say is too weak to do much good.
In early December, representatives of the Pacific Island nation Vanuatu, which is critically vulnerable to sea level rise, brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in The Hague, Netherlands. They are claiming that the member states of the United Nations have an obligation under international law to protect future generations from the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
“The stakes are not high, they’re devastatingly high,” said Julian Aguon, an attorney representing Vanuatu, the Pacific country leading the case. “It’s an opportunity to finally bring the promise of climate justice closer within reach.”
The ICJ was formed after World War II to deal with conflicts between UN member states and arbitrate disputes. While their role is advisory and their rulings are non-binding and lack any enforcement mechanism, they can still carry weight and help bring about change. For example, in 1994, a judgment from the court on war between Libya and Chad over disputed territory prompted Libya to withdraw from Chad, and helped lead to a peace agreement. The ICJ also plays a role in clarifying binding law, such as the meaning of international treaties including the 2015 Paris Agreement that sought to cap the severity of global warming.
While the participation of the US in the Paris Agreement over the next four years is certainly very much in doubt, the case could still make a big difference for countries like Vanuatu. Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, which has provided legal support for the case, said a favorable ruling from ICJ would help climate activists hold polluting countries accountable. Youth activists could cite the ruling in future climate litigation against their governments. Politicians could use the ICJ’s opinion to push for sanctions against countries who fail to comply, and diplomats could point to the document as a minimum standard in next year’s global climate change negotiations. “Failure to comply with legal consequences in the face of such devastating climate harm, that’s not just being in contravention of the law, it’s unconscionable,” Chowdhury said.
You can read more about this on the SwissInfo website here.
