The hearing into nation-states’ legal obligations over climate change wrapped up at the United Nations’ top court in the Hague on Friday, 13. The U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory ruling after years of lobbying from small island and vulnerable coastal states, which argue that rising sea levels due to global warming pose an existential threat.
The judges’ advisory opinion of the hearing that began on Monday, December 2, 2024, is expected to be published next year. However, the judge’s opinion will not be legally binding, but analysts say it will carry legal weight and could influence future climate negotiations. Climate negotiations have been marred with stonewalling and vague literature, the latest being the unsuccessful plastic treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea.
Rising sea levels are threatening the very existence of small islands and coastal states. Pacific Island nations, such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands, are facing a significant loss of territory due to rising sea levels driven by climate change. A NASA analysis indicates that these nations will experience at least six inches (15 cm) of sea level rise by 2050, even under the best-case scenarios.
“Territories are disappearing. Livelihoods are being destroyed. Fundamental rights are being violated as we speak,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, the lead counsel for the Pacific Islands state of Vanuatu during the 15 Judge bench hearing.
She further highlighted that the destruction of the Earth’s climate system and other parts of the environment constitutes grave breaches of international law.
“Legal consequences of violations of international law are always twofold. The wrongful conduct, the breaching conduct, must cease, it must be put to an end. And secondly, reparations must be made,” Wewerinke-Singh told reporters at The Hague during the opening of the hearing.
During the meeting at the Hague, big polluting countries argued that only climate treaties, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, confer any legal obligations on nation-states regarding climate change.
“An advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate whether individual states or groups of states have violated obligations about climate change in the past or bear responsibility for reparations, as some participants have suggested,” legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, Margaret L. Taylor, said at the Hague.
Other major economies have made similar arguments with India’s representative, Luther Rangreji, telling the court “In rendering its advisory opinion, the court may exercise due caution to avoid devising new or additional obligations beyond what is already agreed to under the existing climate change regime, which take into consideration historic emissions, climate justice and the principles of equity.”
According to analyst Elena Kosolapova of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, many developed nations fear the financial consequences if human rights laws are invoked.
“Under the law of state responsibility, any breach of an international obligation, known as an ‘international wrongful act,’ entails certain consequences,” she said. “And many vulnerable countries have highlighted this during the hearings. The responsible state is obligated to make reparations for the injury caused by the wrongful act.”
Those reparations could take the form of compensation.
Under the climate change convention and in the Paris Agreement, compensation was explicitly excluded from the loss and damage talks. Besides, the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 and consequent operationalization at COP29 is aimed at providing financial support to nations most vulnerable to climate-induced disasters.
Key agreements signed at COP29 included hosting and trustee arrangements with the World Bank, enabling the fund to begin disbursing resources by 2025. To date, over $730 million has been pledged to the fund.
