At a landmark hearing Tuesday on climate change law at the United Nation’s top court in The Hague, Britain argued that only existing climate treaties should have any bearing on a state’s obligations to address the crisis, echoing calls from other big economies.
Small island states have told the court that global warming poses an existential risk, arguing that international human rights laws must apply, in addition to any negotiated climate agreements. Such an outcome could pave the way for compensation claims against big polluting nations.
The hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of several legal cases that has the potential to reframe global climate change negotiations.
Some 99 countries are participating in the two-week hearing at the ICJ, making it the largest case in the court’s history. It has pitted small island nations against big polluters and fossil fuel producers.
At the heart of the case is whether international law obliges nation states to prevent climate change and pay for the damage caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.
Britain argued that the only legal obligations are derived from existing climate treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set a target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
“The climate crisis can only be met by states working together,” British Attorney General Richard Hermer told the court on Tuesday. “The most constructive, the most concrete, and thus the most legally effective way is through the legally binding agreements setting out states’ obligations to tackle the challenges of climate change. … At the heart of the global response to climate change is the landmark Paris Agreement.”
‘Escape accountability’
Critics accused Britain of trying to avoid legal responsibilities.
“The United Kingdom laid out contemptuous arguments in front of the International Court of Justice with one key goal: escape accountability and responsibilities for decades of climate harms,” Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement sent to VOA.
“By claiming that the Paris Agreement contains the sum total of States’ legal obligations on climate change, the U.K. effectively asked the Court to ignore both science and history: decades of fossil-fueled emissions, and the ample evidence that they knew far too well that such conduct would push the world to the brink of a catastrophe,” Duyck added.
Island states
Small island and coastal states, led by Vanuatu, have argued that rising sea levels caused by global warming threaten their existence — and therefore international human rights laws must be relevant, in addition to the binding agreements made in negotiated climate treaties.
“The conduct responsible for this existential harm cannot, I repeat, cannot be lawful under international law,” Vanuatu Attorney General Arnold Kiel Loughman told the court last week.
The 15 judges will offer an advisory opinion that has the potential to reframe climate change negotiations, according to analyst Elena Kosolapova of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
“The expectation is for the court’s advisory opinion to provide a clear legal benchmark and remove any ambiguity around countries’ obligations under international law. And U.N. negotiations would certainly benefit from legal clarity,” Kosolapova told VOA.
Global hearings
Scientists say climate change is driving extreme weather events around the world. That has put the spotlight on the rights of the communities affected.
The ICJ hearing is one of three international courts asked to provide legal clarity on climate change.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held hearings in Brazil and Barbados earlier this year and is expected to give its opinion on nation states’ legal obligations in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, judges at the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled in May that greenhouse gas emissions are subject to international law, and that all states are obliged to limit global warming and protect marine environments.
“If a state fails to comply with this obligation, international [legal] responsibility would be engaged for that state,” Judge Albert Hoffmann explained at the time of the ruling.
Small island states praised that advisory opinion, claiming it gave teeth to climate change laws.
The hearing at the ICJ is due to finish on Friday. The judges are expected to take several more weeks to issue their opinion.
