THE HAGUE — A lawyer for a small South Pacific island nation told the world’s highest court to heed her warning.
“Tuvalu will not go quietly into the rising sea,” Phillipa Webb said, hoping her ominous words this week would make a mark as two weeks of historic and closely watched hearings on the threat of climate change wrapped up Friday.
The International Court of Justice took up the largest case in its history after the United Nations General Assembly asked the institution to clarify what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact.
Tuvalu was one of several small island nations that, fearing they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, lobbied the U.N. to ask the court for an advisory opinion.
In all, 96 countries and 11 international organizations spoke in the Peace Palace, including many who had never before participated in proceedings before The Hague-based court.
Even if the proceedings don’t lead to a defining opinion, Nikki Reisch, the director of climate policy at the Center for International Environmental Law, says they were a giant step forward. “The hearings have really been a watershed moment for human rights, climate justice and accountability, even before a decision is out,” she said.
The court has been asked to answer two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments where their acts, or lack of action, significantly harmed the climate and environment?
Countries including Tuvalu, Chile and the Philippines want countries such as the United States, China and Russia to reduce their emissions and provide financial help to alleviate the devastating impact of climate change that they feel endangers their very existence.
“We want a clear and unambiguous decision that the conduct — that has caused climate change over time — is unlawful under international law,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who is leading the legal team for the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu.
Any decision by the court would be nonbinding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits.
“It is too often repeated that the decision will be nonbinding,” Reisch said. Instead, she insisted, “it will be an authoritative interpretation of international law.”
Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the ICJ to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, which could be rendered “null and void” by an aggressive opinion, according to Wewerinke-Singh.
However, major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States want the court to defer to the landmark Paris Agreement, in which countries agreed to limit human-caused warming to a 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
“States designed this international legal framework to address the uniquely complex collective action problem posed by anthropogenic global warming, and it embodies the clearest, most specific and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change,” Margaret Taylor said on behalf of the U.S., referring to the Paris Agreement.
The world has already warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Between 1990 and 2020, sea levels rose by a global average of 3.9 inches and parts of the South Pacific have seen significantly more.
The vast majority of participating countries said the Paris Agreement does not go far enough to protect them.
Fifteen judges from around the world will now consider the oral and written submissions. At the end of the hearing Friday, the court posed a series of questions to the participants who have until the end of the year to reply.
On average, the court takes six months to issue an opinion but given the extent of the proceedings, a decision isn’t expected until late in 2025.
Quell writes for the Associated Press.
