With over 100 nations and non-governmental organizations requesting an opinion on “the obligations of States concerning climate change,” the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has opened hearings in the largest climate change case yet. Years of campaigning by island governments facing an existential threat from rising sea levels a phenomenon fueled by a warming planet has resulted in the two-week hearing. They “want the court to confirm that the conduct that has wrecked the climate is unlawful,” Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, head of Vanuatu’s legal team, said. The United Nations’ highest court will hear arguments from Vanuatu, a tiny island nation in the Pacific with a population of about 300,000.
ICJ tackles climate change
A decision is not anticipated until 2025, and hearings will continue until December 12. The ICJ’s advisory opinions have legal, ethical, and political significance even if they are not legally binding. A group of 27 law students from the University of South Pacific in Vanuatu started the historic climate change case. They came from a variety of Pacific island countries, all of which are particularly susceptible to the escalating consequences of climate change. Solomon Yeo, a Solomon Islander, came up with a plan with his classmates to use the ICJ to alter international law regarding climate change. Yeo, currently the campaign director for Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the group’s NGO, is in the Hague for the hearings. “Today, as sea levels rise and the impacts of climate change intensify, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment for the Republic of Vanuatu, in response to statements made by the United States and Australia at the historic ICJ Climate Case on December 4, 2024. Regardless of political beliefs or geographic location, climate change is an existential hazard that affects all countries.
Historic climate hearings begin
The hearing follows the disastrous outcome of the recent COP29 summit, which was held in the petrostate of Azerbaijan. The talks almost broke down as fossil fuel interests loomed large and the countries that caused the disastrous increase in carbon dioxide levels resisted calls for financial support from countries that were threatened by their actions. Campaigners are quietly optimistic that their case in the Hague will succeed despite this. In addition to having significant ramifications for litigation at the national, regional, and worldwide levels, an advisory opinion from the ICJ would provide clarification on legal issues on climate change. “The declarations made by the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Australia during the ICJ proceedings dismay us. These countries, which are among the biggest polluters of greenhouse gasses in the world, have cited previous agreements and pledges that, unfortunately, have not been able to spur significant emission reductions.
Court takes on global warming
To be clear, these treaties are necessary, but they cannot serve as a shield for inaction or a replacement for judicial responsibility. The failure to reduce emissions, the consequences of climate change, and the violations of human rights that have resulted from this failure must all be held accountable. Some of these countries, on which we rely for assistance and support, have failed to recognize the gravity of the situation or their obligations under international law, which is especially worrisome. It is even more important that they act ethically and in solidarity with vulnerable countries like ours because we rely on their help.” The behavior that is causing climate change is not just careless, as we have argued before the Court, but it is also illegal under many international commitments, such as those under environmental law, human rights law, and the law of the sea. As a persistent violation of international law, the devastation of Earth’s climate system necessitates prompt legal acknowledgment and collaborative actions to reverse the trend, mend the damage, and safeguard our futures from additional devastation.
Nations debate climate justice
It hopes that France and the United Kingdom, two of our former colonial powers, will acknowledge the seriousness of this situation and back our ongoing right to self-determination. Their backing in the days ahead might largely reaffirm their dedication to justice, solidarity, and the rule of law. We urge all countries, particularly the most capable and historically accountable, to align their actions with the fundamentals of international law and the pressing needs of our planet. No nation can afford to continue to ignore the situation. Now is the moment for swift, legally sound action.
