ICJ Holds Hearings on Climate Change Obligations and Responsibilities

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) conducted oral hearings from December 2 to 13 on climate change obligations as requested by the UN General Assembly. The ICJ aims to explore the financial liabilities of nations for climate change contributions and necessary actions. Responses to judges’ questions were collected by December 20, engaging over 100 countries in this critical discussion.

In early December, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) engaged in oral hearings concerning its Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the aim was to ascertain the financial liabilities of nations contributing to climate change and the necessary preventative actions. As hearings concluded, questions were posited by the judges, and responses were collected by the deadline of December 20.

Established under the UN Charter in 1945, the ICJ, often referred to as the World Court, provides a platform for nations to resolve civil disputes. It operates from the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, which is also home to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Criminal Court. While both the ICJ and the ICC share a location, they function independently and hold disparate jurisdictions.

The ICJ comprises 15 judges, elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and Council. The current President is Judge Nawaf Salam from Lebanon, alongside judges from various countries including Australia, China, and the United States.

In response to Vanuatu’s request on March 29, 2023, the UNGA tasked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations to mitigate climate change. Although non-binding, this opinion could suggest future interpretations of climate-related legal actions. The UNGA posed two critical questions: regarding obligations under international law to protect the climate and the legal consequences for states inducing significant climate damage, especially considering vulnerable nations.

Hearings commenced on December 2, with numerous countries presenting their oral arguments over a period spanning until December 13. Each statement was documented in advance with citations provided and verbatim transcripts available on the Court’s website. The legal discourse referenced foundational documents such as the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Larger nations contended that these treaties supersede existing international laws, thereby limiting liability, while developing nations maintained that ongoing climate impacts breach several human rights tenets.

During the hearings, President Salem emphasized a structured approach to follow-up questions, contrasting with common appellate court practices. Final inquiries were submitted in writing by judges, including what obligations oil-producing nations hold, whether Paris Agreement commitments are procedural, and the implications of a recognized right to a healthy environment within international law.

Responses were submitted by numerous nations and organizations by the December 20 deadline. Notable respondents included the African Union, the European Union, and a variety of countries from various continents, highlighting global engagement on the subject of climate accountability.

The issue of climate change has gained prominence in international law, prompting the United Nations General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate protection. This advisory opinion aims to clarify existing international legal frameworks regarding climate change and provide guidance on states’ responsibilities, particularly towards vulnerable nations adversely affected by climate phenomena. The implications of such legal rulings are significant, as they may drive legislative change and set precedents for future climate-related litigation.

In summary, the ICJ’s recent hearings on climate change obligations mark a pivotal moment in international environmental law. The court’s forthcoming advisory opinion will potentially shape how nations understand their responsibilities towards climate action and reparations, particularly concerning vulnerable states. As nations engage in this critical dialogue, the outcomes may profoundly affect both current and future generations in their fight against climate change.

Original Source: www.forbes.com