For the first two weeks of December, the World Court is holding public hearings to shed light on states’ obligations to prevent the climate crisis.

Back in 2023, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted a resolution asking for the International Court of Justice’s answer to these two questions:

1. What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system, environment from human-induced emissions?
2. What are the legal consequences for states that failed to fulfill these obligations and caused harm to the climate system and environment?

More than 100 countries and international organizations are set to speak at the ICJ in The Hague, Netherlands, including the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the World Health Organization.

This landmark case started with law students from Pacific island nations. In 2019, they brought the case to the government of Vanuatu, an archipelagic country in the South Pacific Ocean, which then proposed it to the UN General Assembly.

“As judges of the world court, you possess power…to help us course correct and renew hope for humanity to address the greatest challenge of our time,” Cynthia Houniuhi, a climate activist from the Solomon Islands, said before the top court’s judges on Monday, December 2.

In recent years, small island states and developing nations have been at the forefront of climate litigation, expanding the tools they can use to exact accountability from governments and corporations.

What the Court can do and cannot do

The World Court will have to clarify the obligations of countries under international law, but it will not create new rules.

Advisory opinions from the court are not binding. It also has no enforcement powers. What it can do is to settle legal disputes submitted to them by states and give advisory opinions on legal questions.

Despite some limitations, countries who supported the resolution argue that the court’s opinion holds weight and may guide countries in becoming more ambitious in its climate targets.

“It is not legally binding; however, it does carry enormous legal weight and moral authority,” said Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau during the March 2023 UN General Assembly. Kalsakau was the prime minister of Vanuatu at that time.

It can also be a north star for domestic courts around the world considering the impacts of climate change.

“An advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice could become the leading authority to which those domestic courts would look in framing their own decisions,” said Max Hufanen Rai, ambassador of Papua New Guinea, in the same meeting.

For more than a year, the World Court gathered documents relevant to the case and written statements from countries and regional economic bodies.

The public can watch the livestream of the hearings via UN Web TV from December 2 to 13.

What’s the situation now?

The hearings come at the heels of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29), in a period where there’s growing discontent among authorities and civil society on the effectiveness of international talks in addressing the climate emergency.

Currently, the world has the 2015 Paris Agreement. This treaty is binding and countries are suppose to set nationally determined contributions or NDCs (these are targets to reduce emissions).

However, countries are not legally bound to achieve their NDCs. There are no penalties if they fail to meet these targets.

Before the Paris accord there was the Kyoto Protocol, which prescribed emission reduction targets.

The negative experience with the Kyoto Protocol, petroleum exporting countries wrote to the World Court in preparation of the hearings, “should serve as a direct warning.”

Just this year, the UN came out with a report saying the world is not on track to meet the 1.5°C warming limit target. Instead, greenhouse gas emissions across G20 members increased and accounted for 77% of global emissions, the UN said.

Another target that the world missed is the $100 billion climate finance goal that is supposed to help vulnerable nations deal with adverse effects of the crisis. At COP29, countries set $300 billion as the new target, met with disappointment by leaders and civil society alike. – Rappler.com