The International Court of Justice deals with climate change
The country of Vanuatu consists of eighty-three islands arranged in a shaggy “Y” shape in the South Pacific Ocean. Some islands are deserted. Some have gorgeous white beaches, and some have active volcanoes. The population of Vanuatu is smaller than that of Wichita. Its economy is smaller than that of Vermont, and its army consists of three hundred volunteers. But diplomatically, it punches above its weight.
Thanks to Vanuatu’s maneuvers, the entire industrial world was virtually put on trial this month in The Hague. The case before the fifteen-member International Court of Justice concerns climate change. Do countries have a legal and moral obligation to prevent a planetary catastrophe? If they violate those obligations, what will be the consequences? Nearly ninety countries have provided written testimony in the case, and a similar number have sent representatives to the Netherlands to present oral arguments. These actions have been called a “landmark,” “historic,” “critical,” and a “watershed moment.”
“I choose my words carefully when I say that this may be the most important issue in human history,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and environment, told the court. “Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was overlooked.”
The United States has an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice, often called the “World Court,” the judicial arm of the United Nations. The United States actively participates in cases before the Court, but reserves the right to reject any rulings it does not like. (The International Court of Justice, which hears civil cases, is different from the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, to which the United States is not a party.)
In the case of climate, the United States has a lot at stake. Although no country is named in these measures, it is clear that the United States, as the world’s largest emitter, is clearly the main target. Next comes China, then, in descending order, the European Union countries, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia. “It is a small number of easily identifiable countries that produced the vast majority” of the problem, Regenvano said. “However, other countries, including my own, are suffering the brunt of the consequences.”
In The Hague, the United States said there was no real need for this issue. The world already has a mechanism for dealing with climate change, and this is the road show for international negotiations. “The United States encourages the Court to ensure that its opinion preserves and strengthens the centrality of this system,” Margaret Taylor, State Department legal counsel, told the justices. In a rare show of unity, China made much the same argument. So did Saudi Arabia. The representative of the Saudis, Prince Jalawi Al Saud, said that “the specialized treaty regime on climate change provides a complete answer to the questions” posed before the court.
Everyone in the wood-paneled courtroom, including the Americans, Chinese and Saudis, could see the flaws in this argument. The “order” to which Taylor referred began with the so-called Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The summit produced a global pact to “prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system,” but the treaty left both ambiguous. The meaning of this phrase and the mechanism for achieving it. In 2015, after more than two decades of debate, world leaders agreed to try to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). It is widely agreed that this threshold will be breached soon. Meanwhile, Global Inc2 Emissions continue to rise. It is expected to reach a new level in 2024. Emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, are also increasing. At this point, only action at an unprecedented pace and scale can prevent a 2°C rise in global temperature, and under current policies, the temperature increase could easily exceed 3°C (5.4°F) by the end of the year. century.
“We no longer have time,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared shortly before the start of the latest round of negotiations, in mid-November. The hearing took place in Azerbaijan, a country where oil and gas sales account for two-thirds of the government budget, and was generally viewed as a failure. As one commentator put it: “Evaluation must fall between failure and disaster.” The victory of Donald Trump, who has pledged to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the United States from the negotiating process (again), makes progress over the next four years seem unlikely.
Because this “system” has proven woefully – indeed, historically insufficient on a global scale – Vanuatu is pressing for this issue to now be brought before the World Court. As said by James Hansen, former president of… NASAAs the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified in The Hague: “Climate change must be brought to the International Court of Justice because young people, developing countries and indigenous peoples have nowhere else to turn.”
The rulings issued by the International Court of Justice are advisory only. However, the court’s opinion, expected early next year, could be, according to the magazine nature In other words, “changing the rules of the game.” Globally, more than two thousand climate cases have already been filed. (The bulk of these cases are before U.S. courts, but several hundred have been filed in other countries.) The strongly worded ruling is likely to lead to more lawsuits. Courts around the world look to ICJ decisions for guidance, as do other international courts. “The ICJ’s actions can demonstrate that tackling climate change is not just a matter of political will or voluntary pledges – but rather a binding legal responsibility,” Gretel Aguilar, director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a group also testifying in The Hague, said.
But for Vanuatu, even a ruling deemed a victory would not actually be a victory. The country, considered one of the world’s most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, has been forced to relocate six villages due to sea level rise, and the government has identified dozens more villages that may have to move soon. More losses are already inevitable. “Climate-induced population displacement is a key feature of our future,” Renevanu said. “This is reality.” ♦