The News
Vanuatu’s attorney-general said the landmark International Court of Justice case on climate change was a matter of “survival” for island nations as hearings began at The Hague on Monday.
The case, which involves more than 100 countries and non-governmental organizations, will examine countries’ responsibility for worsening global warming.
The final result will be advisory, but the case reflects the growing use of justice systems to force companies and countries to curb carbon emissions. Recent rulings in the US and Europe required governments do more to protect citizens, while litigation against companies is on the rise.
“The stakes could not be higher,” the Vanuatu attorney-general said of the ICJ case.
SIGNALS
Justice systems increasingly employed to boost climate efforts
The ICJ hearings represent the biggest case in human history on climate change, in terms of participation, Euronews wrote. The case, which began as a campaign by university students in Fiji, reflects a surge of citizens looking to hold governments of large carbon-emitting nations legally accountable for inaction, creating blueprints for litigation across the public and private sectors. At the same time, more Western governments have been using the legal system to crack down on climate campaigners, with the UK government handing record sentences in July to activists who planned to block a highway.
Questions remain over ICJ’s power to create change
Though the ICJ’s decisions are only advisory, they could provide an “antidote to political inertia at COP summits,” Nikki Reisch, a director at the Center for International Environmental Law, wrote for Bloomberg Law. At the recent COP29, many nations were angered by the “inadequate” financial deal detailing how much large carbon-emitting nations ought to pay developing ones. Clarifying countries’ legal obligations, by contrast, doesn’t depend on negotiated outcomes that can be “reduced to the lowest common denominator,” Reisch wrote. Still, the ICJ has been under fire this year, after Israel ignored its demand to evacuate occupied Palestinian territory, leading some to question its power. Reisch argued that this is why governments should “back up” international bodies like the ICJ: They are “critical checks against the whims of changing political administrations.”