The climate crisis is perhaps the most significant challenge of our generation, and its impacts are currently being felt around the world. Yet, delegations from vulnerable nations, particularly those from the Pacific, reminded everyone of the brutal truth: environmental destruction is the burden of a few states.
These nations, they argue, have been the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, yet they stand to lose the least from the devastating consequences of their actions.
At a historic hearing yesterday held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) learned from Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and the Environment that the clear link between an insignificant few industrialized countries is with the escalating climate crisis.
“We are at the forefront of a crisis we did not create,” Regenvanu said, pointing out that Pacific island nations, such as Vanuatu, were already suffering the worst impacts of climate change, from rising sea levels to intensified natural disasters.
This is the landmark hearing at the culmination of years of advocacy by Pacific island nations, including Vanuatu, supported by a group of Pacific island law students who campaigned tirelessly for climate justice. In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly made a massive leap in that direction by unanimously passing a resolution calling for the ICJ to render an advisory opinion on what legal obligations states have vis-a-vis climate change and the consequences for those failing to act.
The ICJ advisory opinion process has drawn in representatives from 98 nations, including some of the most powerful and wealthy nations on earth-the United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States. These are among the largest historical contributors to the climate crisis. Simultaneously, countries that have contributed very little to global emissions-Bangladesh, Sudan, and many Pacific island nations-are disproportionately bearing the burden of climate impacts.
Clear Message On Responsibility
Regenvanu’s statement at the hearing highlighted continued and rising emissions from few nations despite “increasingly dire warnings” from scientists and climate experts. He mentioned how global emissions have increased by more than 50% since 1990, which exacerbates the situation for countries less responsible for the damage.
Speaking during the hearing, the legal counsel of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which comprises Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, Ilan Kiloe spoke passionately about the harsh reality people from these nations face. “The harsh reality is that many of our peoples will not survive,” Kiloe said, stressing the existential threat posed by climate change to their communities and way of life.
Kiloe also spoke on the relationship between the ongoing climate crisis and colonial history, stating that the most guilty countries for environmental degradation are also the colonial powers that have been exploiting Pacific island nations. “We have not yet recovered from the ongoing violence inflicted on us as we struggle to rebuild and assert ourselves within a system we did not create,” he added.
Legal Violations And Demand for Reparations
The lead counsel for Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, noted that some of the states were in breach of international law due to actions and inactions committed in handling fossil fuel extraction, fossil fuel industry subsidies, and failing to adequately regulate their emissions.
“States responsible for the climate crisis must make full reparation for the harm they have caused,” she pressed. She said it should be proportionate to past historical contributions of each state to global greenhouse gas emissions and should comprise compensation beyond what has already been pledged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
International Court’s Role
One of the several efforts being made in legal frameworks to address the global climate crisis is an advisory opinion from the ICJ. International courts like ITLOS and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are also taking on the issue. Just a few months ago, ITLOS had issued an opinion declaring greenhouse gases to be pollutants and that the states have a legal obligation to control them beyond the UNFCCC scope.
The ICJ, although it cannot make binding decisions, should issue an authoritative document as a guide in future climate litigation and international climate negotiations. Similar law proceedings have been ongoing in Europe where the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland violated the rights of its people by not reducing national emissions. These decisions become part of the body of law on which future governments and global institutions may draw when taking action.
