The ICJ’s opinion may clarify if states must curb emissions under international law (e.g., human rights treaties) beyond the Paris Agreement. Small islands demand reparations for climate harm; polluters resist. Though non-binding, it could spur litigation, set precedents, and pressure nations to enhance climate action, reshaping global governance.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: Impakter
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could shape global governance by clarifying state obligations and influencing climate litigation.
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN).
It was established in 1945, it settles legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred by UN organs and specialized agencies.
The ICJ has 15 judges, each serving a nine-year term. Decisions are made by a majority vote of the judges.
Judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, ensuring representation from the world’s major legal systems.
Rulings are binding only on the parties involved in the case. They are not subject to appeal, but the court can interpret its own judgments if requested.
The ICJ uses English and French as its official languages.
In December 2024, the ICJ started hearings on a climate change case brought by small island nations, led by Vanuatu. These nations seek legal accountability from major polluting countries for their role in rising sea levels.
The ICJ is holding hearings to provide an advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change under a UN General Assembly resolution (77/276) requested by small island nations like Vanuatu.
The goal is to clarify states' legal responsibilities under international law to protect the climate system and address the rights of current and future generations.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion, though non-binding, could reshape global climate governance. It may set legal standards for climate action, establish frameworks for climate reparations, and influence future climate lawsuits worldwide.
Small island states view climate change as part of broader international law, while major polluters argue it should be governed solely by climate-specific treaties.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion could provide clarity on the legal obligations of states under international law regarding climate change. It would help in interpreting existing treaties like the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, and also define the responsibilities of countries in mitigating climate change.
Although non-binding, the ICJ’s opinion could set a legal precedent for national and international courts, influence future climate litigation by providing a framework for interpreting states’ duties and the legal consequences of failing to meet them.
It could exert moral and political pressure on governments to take stronger climate action. Even if not legally enforceable, the court’s standpoint could shame high-emitting countries into adopting more ambitious climate policies.
It could strengthen the link between climate action and human rights, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment. This could broaden the scope of climate governance to include socio-economic and cultural rights, making climate action more comprehensive.
|
It could inspire more climate lawsuits against governments and corporations worldwide. Activists and vulnerable nations could use the court’s conclusions to demand greater accountability and action from polluters. |
It could uncover gaps and contradictions in existing international laws, such as the difficulty of applying principles like “polluter pays” or “no transboundary harm” to climate change, which could push for the development of more robust and specific legal frameworks.
Climate change involves cumulative emissions from multiple sources over time, making it difficult to assign responsibility to specific countries or stakeholders.
Climate change has far-reaching and interconnected effects on many sectors and regions. This complexity makes it difficult to apply traditional legal principles.
Developing nations claim that they have the right to use their natural resources for economic growth, which can conflict with global climate goals.
Many principles under the UNFCCC, such as “common but differentiated responsibilities,” are not legally binding, limiting their enforceability.
Expanding the climate debate to include areas like trade, energy, and migration could lead to conflicts between different areas of international law, complicating global climate governance.
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on climate change may not be binding, however, it has the potential to clarify legal obligations, influence domestic climate litigation, and reshape international climate negotiations. The overall success depends on striking a balance between legal clarity and maintaining the legitimacy of the international climate regime.
Must Read Articles:
COPERNICUS CLIMATE CENTRE SERVICE
ICJ BEGINS HEARING ON LANDMARK CLIMATE CHANGE CASE
INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Examine the principle of 'Common but Differentiated Responsibilities' (CBDR) in the context of climate change. How does it shape international climate negotiations? 250 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
