Landmark Climate Hearings: World's Top Court Weighs In

The International Court of Justice has begun historic climate hearings, marking a significant step in addressing global climate change. Over 100 countries and organizations will participate in the hearings, which aim to clarify nations' legal responsibilities regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

For centuries, Pacific Island communities thrived in harmony with the ocean. However, their very existence is now under threat due to rising sea levels. This devastating consequence is largely attributed to the warming of global temperatures, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.

According to Jule Schnakenberg, Executive Officer of World's Youth for Climate Justice, “Sea level rise poses an enormous challenge for small island states, where land is scarce and people are struggling to find space to live.” Schnakenberg emphasized that this issue not only affects housing but also limits access to fresh water, which is essential for drinking, growing food, and cooking.

The severe human rights violations resulting from climate change have galvanized campaigners to urge governments to take legal action. This relentless advocacy has culminated in a landmark decision by the United Nations General Assembly, requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide a legal opinion on the obligations of states concerning climate change.

A historic moment is unfolding as 98 countries and 12 international organizations, led by the Pacific Island of Vanuatu, prepare to present oral statements to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the next two weeks. The ICJ will issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change and the consequences for governments that fail to act or harm the environment.

Siosiua Veikune, a campaigner with the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change group, reflected on the significance of this moment, saying, “For several of us, this is a journey that has taken us five years and we recognize this milestone not as a goal, but rather as a checkpoint, a checkpoint because this is another step in the right direction in this fight for climate justice.” This journey began with a campaign by Vanuatu, which led to the UN General Assembly requesting the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change in March 2023.

The devastating impact of climate change is being felt across the globe, from severe droughts to intense flooding and storms. However, for small island states in the Pacific, the looming threat of sea level rise poses an existential risk. Alarmingly, water levels in this region are rising at a rate almost twice as fast as the global average, with a staggering increase of 10 to 15 centimeters since 1993, as reported by the World Meteorological Organization.

Unfortunately, current emissions-reduction targets set by nations under the Paris Agreement fall woefully short of the mark. UN assessments indicate that these targets will likely result in a global temperature rise of up to 2.9 degrees Celsius, far exceeding the agreement's stated limit of 2 degrees and the aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius. This disparity underscores the urgent need for more ambitious action to mitigate climate change and ensure a sustainable future for all.

A significant gap exists between current state policies and what is necessary to prevent climate catastrophe, according to Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "There is such an unconscionable gap between where state policies need to be and where they are at and what justice and science demands is necessary [to be done] to avert climate catastrophe," Chowdhury emphasized ¹.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to play a crucial role in addressing this gap. Legal experts believe that the ICJ's advisory opinion will not only clarify the obligations of states under existing legislation but also go beyond the scope of the Paris Agreement. This is particularly important, as some countries are attempting to hide behind the Paris Agreement, arguing that it is the sole guiding framework for climate action.

Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, representing Vanuatu in the ICJ climate hearings, highlighted this issue, stating, "These big polluters are trying to hide behind Paris, essentially saying that is all there is." She posed a critical question: whether the court will "confirm that there's more than Paris and that these other obligations also apply in parallel" ¹.

The ICJ will hear testimonies from almost 100 countries, making this a landmark moment in the global effort to address climate change. The ICJ is one of three courts requested to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of states concerning climate change, underscoring the significance of this case.

In a groundbreaking move, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued an advisory opinion in May, recognizing greenhouse gases as a form of marine pollution. This opinion underscored the obligations of states under the law of the sea, which go beyond those outlined in the Paris Accord.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to deliver its opinion on the obligations of states to protect human rights related to climate change. This decision will precede the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) opinion on the matter. The ICJ's decision will take into account the two previous advisory opinions, as well as other significant climate judgments.

Experts highlight that the ICJ will consider notable climate judgments, including the European Court of Human Rights' ruling that Switzerland violated its citizens' human rights by failing to meet emissions reduction targets. This ruling sets a critical precedent for states' climate obligations and their impact on human rights.

Jule Schnakenberg emphasizes the importance of rights-based climate action, stating, “We want to move towards kind of rights-based climate action so that people know they have a human right or many human rights, and that their states have to take all necessary measures [...]and do this on the basis of the best available science [...] and if states don't do that, you have a legal right to hold your government or companies accountable."l” This approach prioritizes the protection of human rights in the face of climate change.

Although advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are not legally binding, they hold significant political and legal weight. A notable example is Ireland's decision to suspend trade with Israel on products from the occupied West Bank, following an ICJ advisory opinion on the violation of Palestinian rights. Similarly, the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change could have substantial political implications, particularly as countries prepare to submit new greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets ahead of the 2025 United Nations climate summit.

A landmark court case in 2024 saw a group of older Swiss women emerge victorious against their government at the European Court of Human Rights. This win sets a significant precedent in the fight against climate change.

According to Wewerinke-Singh, “That would probably be the ideal outcome, that the court just provides the course correction that is needed for the negotiations themselves, so then the ambition is increased.” This outcome could have far-reaching implications for climate negotiations and international cooperation.

If the court's decision doesn't provide the desired outcome, Chowdhury believes it could still offer a “legal blueprint” for future climate litigation. This blueprint would outline the international law applicable to climate change, enabling potential lawsuits against states and companies in domestic and international courts. Currently, over 2,000 climate cases are ongoing globally, demonstrating the growing trend of climate litigation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings on climate change have finally begun, and campaigners like Jule Schnakenberg are hopeful about the outcome. After years of fighting for this moment, Schnakenberg says, “Throughout this campaign, we've always said that we are stubborn optimists, and I think we just have to believe that change is possible.”

The ICJ's advisory opinion could be a game-changer in the fight against climate change. According to Joie Chowdhury, the court can establish that the legal principle for remedy and reparations exists under international law. Chowdhury notes, “Of course, you're going to have to prove causality and it'll be dependent on a case-by-case basis, but what the court can do is lay out that the legal principle for remedy and reparations does exist under international law.” This could pave the way for future climate litigation and hold polluters accountable for their actions.