On December 6, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) commenced hearings on a significant climate change case involving India, China, and the United States. The case has been brought forth by nearly 100 countries seeking the establishment of new climate change laws.
India has opposed the creation of new laws, arguing that the existing international framework is sufficient. This stance has drawn criticism from small island nations that are advocating for stricter regulations. Indian representative Luther Rangrej stated that the court should not impose new obligations beyond the current climate change arrangements.
Major emitters, including India, China, and the US, contended that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is adequate. Rangrej described it as a balanced framework accepted by nearly all nations. India emphasized its commitment to taking ambitious steps to address climate change but accused developed countries of failing to provide necessary climate finance and technology.
India aims to achieve 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030 and is working towards net-zero emissions by 2070, which is 20 years later than the targets set by Western industrial nations.
In contrast, small island nations have urged the court to enforce strict regulations to hold major polluters accountable. Vanuatu's Attorney General Arnold Kiel Luffman highlighted the existential threat posed by climate change, stating that domestic legal avenues are insufficient, hence their appeal to the court for justice.
Evidence presented to the court indicated that by 2023, sea levels had risen by an average of 4.3 centimeters, with some areas experiencing even greater increases. Additionally, global temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees Celsius since the industrial era.
Vanuatu's Ambassador Ralph Regenvanu noted that emissions have increased by 50% since 1990, with small countries suffering the most. France has called on the ICJ to clarify and strengthen climate law, with its representative Diego Costa stating that the court can provide clear legal direction.
France anticipates that climate change could raise its temperatures by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, potentially leading to a 10% reduction in GDP and threatening 500,000 homes with flooding. France aims to become carbon neutral by 2050 and reduce emissions by 40% by 2030.
The ICJ's 15 judges are hearing this historic case, which is described as the largest in the court's 80-year history. A ruling could take months or years, although it will not be binding. However, it may assist small nations in seeking justice and exerting pressure on larger polluting countries.
The ICJ will determine the legal responsibilities of nations in protecting the climate and environment and outline potential legal consequences for those failing to meet these responsibilities.
Cynthia Honuihi, leader of the 'Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change' organization, stated that climate change is breaking the 'sacred contract' between generations, emphasizing the dependence of future generations on the decisions made by the most polluting countries today.
This organization initiated the case and has since garnered support from over 100 countries and organizations. Recently, during a United Nations climate meeting, wealthy nations pledged to raise $300 billion annually, although experts assert that the actual need is $1.3 trillion.
Vanuatu's representative Vishal Prasad declared, 'For us, this is a matter of existence. Major countries must fulfill their responsibilities.'