Last month’s COP29 negotiations in Baku ended on a sour note. While an agreement was reached in the waning hours of the summit, many developing countries walked away from the two weeks decrying the deal—especially the relatively small climate finance sum earmarked to help.
But another international meeting this month could bring some much-needed rigor to the future of climate policy in countries around the world.
“COP29 has highlighted more than ever the urgent need for a clear and authoritative understanding of countries’ responsibilities in addressing climate change,” said Vishal Prasad, the Director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change. “The fact that the COP is lagging behind, in meeting the needs of those most vulnerable, is precisely one of the gaps we see the ICJ advisory opinion working to fill.”
Beginning this week, more than 100 countries and international organisations will gather in the Hague to give their arguments on legal responsibilities on climate under binding international law to the International Court of Justice. The meetings, experts say, provide an opportunity to send a strong message to polluters.
The science is clear: the world is in a climate emergency, with little time to lose to take action. But despite decades of participation in international climate diplomacy, countries are reluctant to act with urgency.
Last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the ICJ to consider nations’ legal obligations when it comes to climate change. The resolution came after years of efforts from several nations, led by the small island state Vanuatu and supported by activism from young people around the world.
Now, these parties will finally see a day in court for their demands. Over the next two weeks, countries will give their arguments to the Court on two questions: What are States’ duties under international law to protect the climate for current and future generations? And what are the legal consequences for States causing climate harm to vulnerable nations and affected peoples? The Court’s advisory opinion is expected to land in 2025.
“An ambitious court opinion could provide a vital compass to navigate a safe and just future for our communities by holding polluters accountable,” said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “For too long, major polluters have denied responsibility, evaded accountability, and weakened existing legal obligations regarding climate change. It is time to break this cycle of harm and inaction, offering the legal clarity needed to redress past wrongs and guide future climate cases and action.”
Rooted in existing, binding international law, the advisory opinion could provide a fresh guiding compass for emitters. Countries could gain clearer understanding on their legal responsibilities regarding climate finance, slashing emissions and compensating vulnerable countries for the damages of the climate crisis are some of the key issues that could be pushed forward with an ambitious opinion by the World’s Highest Court.
These hearings will be a key moment to understand countries’ plan to build a safe and healthy world. The court’s opinion—which is expected by 2025—will be rooted in existing legally binding international law including treaties that countries have signed up to in the past.
The ICJ has an example to follow. Earlier this year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a first-of-its-kind opinion concluding that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of marine pollution, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The ruling also states that nations have an obligation to prevent, reduce, and control pollution from greenhouse gases.
“On the heels of a devastatingly unjust outcome at this year’s UN climate talks, the ICJ climate advisory proceedings offer a critical opportunity to set the record straight: countries cannot negotiate their way out of the law,” said Nikki Reisch, the Director of Climate and Energy Program, Center for International Environmental Law. “The wealthiest historical emitters continue to deny, dilute, and avoid their legal duties to pay up for the climate crisis they’ve caused and phase out the fossil fuels driving it. But the world’s highest court can make clear that taking overdue climate action and remedying mounting climate harm is not merely a moral imperative, it’s a legal obligation.”
Related Articles
