close
close

Climate change landmark hearing concludes in The Hague

Climate change landmark hearing concludes in The Hague

A landmark hearing on the legal obligations of nation states on climate change concluded on Friday at the United Nations Supreme Court in The Hague. The result could have implications for the fight against climate change – and for the big polluters accused of emitting most of the greenhouse gases.

The 15 judges at the International Court of Justice heard evidence from 99 countries and dozens of organizations during the two-week hearing.

They seek to determine the legal obligations of states to address climate change and repair the damage caused.

The judges’ advisory opinion is expected to be published next year.

Emotional testimony

The testimony was sometimes technical – but also passionate and emotional. Small island states have argued that their existence is at stake and therefore international human rights laws must apply to climate change.

“For young people, the demand for reparations is crucial for justice. We have inherited a planet in decline and face the bleak prospect of passing on an even more degraded world to future generations,” said Vishal Prasad, campaign director for Pacific Island Students who fight. Climate Change, which lobbied for the case to be heard.

“The demand for immediate cessation is equally clear. If greenhouse gas emissions are not stopped, we are not only risking our future, we are welcoming its demise,” he said.

polluters

This argument has been countered by several major polluting nations, including China, India, Britain and the United States. They argued that only climate treaties, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, confer any legal obligations on nation states regarding climate change.

“An advisory procedure is not the means to challenge whether individual states or groups of states have violated climate change obligations in the past or bear responsibility for reparations, as some participants have suggested,” US State Department Legal Counsel Margaret L. Taylor, told the court on December 4.

“It is a suggestion … that some states, but not all, are entitled, as a matter of international law, to compensation just to demonstrate that the climate system has been affected. We see no basis for such a conclusion,” Taylor . added.

Island states

The UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory ruling after years of lobbying by small island states and vulnerable coastal states, who argue that rising sea levels due to global warming pose an existential threat. The judges’ opinion will not be legally binding, but analysts say it will carry legal weight and could influence future climate change negotiations.

Youth climate groups led the campaign at the UN, and several attended the hearings in The Hague. Many campaigners were upbeat as the two-week hearing ended on Friday.

“We came here hoping that in the end we would get a favorable advisory opinion,” said Kenyan lawyer Brenda Reson Sapuro, who represented the World’s Youth for Climate Justice group at the hearing. “And we still have hope because we told our stories. We told our stories from our hearts. We have spoken about our experiences and we believe that the law is also on our side.”

What happens next?

The ICJ advisory opinion could simply reiterate existing climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, according to Renatus Otto Franz Derler, climate law expert and editor-in-chief of the publication. Cambridge Journal of International Law.

“(Or) a second intermediate outcome would be that states have an obligation to fight climate change. The behavior they do, for example petrostates, violates general international law, so therefore state responsibility would apply,” Derler. VOA said.

Petrostates are countries that are heavily dependent on the export of oil and natural gas.

Instead, the judges may issue a much more ambitious opinion, “in terms of saying that yes, states are causing climate change, it is a violation of international law, and therefore states are required to pay financial compensation and cease all these harmful activities,” Derler said.

He added that such an outcome would likely lead to further legal uncertainty about how and where such claims would be heard.