.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has wrapped up two weeks of historic hearings on the threat of climate change, with a lawyer for the small South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu warning that the country “will not go quietly into the rising sea.” The ICJ, the world’s highest court, 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.
The hearings, which saw 96 countries and 11 international organizations participate, were a significant step forward for human rights, climate justice, and accountability, according to experts. 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, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?
Countries such as Tuvalu, Chile, and the Philippines are calling on nations like the United States, China, and Russia to reduce their emissions and provide financial assistance to mitigate the devastating impact of climate change, which they believe endangers their very existence. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who is leading the legal team for the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, told The Associated Press that they want a “clear and unambiguous decision” that the conduct causing climate change is unlawful under international law.
While any decision by the court would be non-binding, it could serve as a powerful symbol and the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. According to Nikki Reisch, the director of climate policy at the Center for International Environmental Law, the decision will be an authoritative interpretation of international law and could be used to hold countries accountable for their actions. 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 accountable.
The ICJ’s decision could also have an impact on other legal instruments, such as investment agreements, which could be rendered “null and void” if a country fails to comply with the decision. The hearings have been a watershed moment for human rights, climate justice, and accountability, even before a decision is made, Reisch said. The court’s decision, which is expected to be released in the coming months, could have far-reaching implications for the fight against climate change.