The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded hearings on a landmark case that may determine the obligations of nations to protect the climate against the impacts of climate change. The hearings, which took place from December 2 to December 13, involved over 100 countries and organizations, marking the largest participation in a case reviewed by the court.
This judicial review was initiated by the United Nations General Assembly in March 2023, following persistent calls from vulnerable nations, particularly small island states like Vanuatu and Tuvalu, for equitable financial support and compensation for irreversible losses caused by major polluting countries.
Despite contributing only 0.02% of global greenhouse gas emissions, these island nations face existential threats from rising sea levels. The court's ruling, expected in early 2025, will address two critical questions: the obligations of countries under international law to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and the legal consequences for governments whose actions significantly harm the climate.
Countries such as Tuvalu, Chile, and the Philippines are advocating for developed nations to reduce emissions and provide financial assistance to mitigate climate change impacts in the Global South. This demand echoes discussions from the recent UN Climate Conference, which concluded with a proposal seen as inadequate by vulnerable nations.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, leading the legal team for Vanuatu, emphasized the need for a clear declaration regarding the legality of current practices contributing to climate change. Testimonies during the hearings highlighted the devastating effects of rising temperatures on communities at the forefront of the crisis.
Notably, representatives from major greenhouse gas emitters, including the United States, China, and Russia, participated in the hearings. Both the U.S. and China defended the existing UN framework for addressing climate change, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, while Germany rejected broader obligations beyond this agreement.
Despite nearly universal ratification of the Paris Agreement, global emissions continue to rise to record levels. The hearings have underscored a growing divide between major polluters and the rest of the world, according to Nikki Reisch from the Center for International Environmental Law.
The court's opinion, while not legally binding, is anticipated to have significant implications for clarifying state obligations under international law, potentially shaping the future of global climate litigation.