The hearings will look into potential consequences for countries that contribute to global warming
The International Court of Justice has commenced proceedings that will examine the legal obligations of countries to combat climate change, reported Reuters.
The hearings, which began today, will also look into potential consequences for countries that contribute to global warming. The results of these hearings could be referenced in climate change-related suits across the globe.
The proceedings are a response to an outcry from developing nations over the agreement for countries to provide US$300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035 to assist poorer nations dealing with climate change. This agreement was formulated at the COP29 summit.
Vanuatu special envoy for climate change and the environment Ralph Regenvanu called for more funding and expressed the hope that the ICJ could “provide a new avenue to break through the inertia we experience when trying to talk about climate justice” in a statement published by Reuters. The small nation has been impacted by strong storms and increasing sea levels, which it has attributed to climate change.
Regenvanu also added that fossil fuels needed to be phased out. Fiji Attorney General Graham Leung said that the ICJ hearings provided an opportunity for small, developing island nations to advance in their bids to achieve climate change justice.
“As COP29 failed to provide a clear direction for climate justice and ambition, any developments from the ICJ will now only become more weighty,” ClientEarth lawyer Lea Main-Klingst said in a statement published by Reuters.
Ninety-eight countries and 12 international organizations are expected to appear before the ICJ, which is the United Nations’ top court. The US and China will also present arguments as the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.
In addition, the court will hear from oil production group OPEC. The proceedings will conclude on December 13; the court will then deliver its opinion next year. While having legal and political significance, the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not binding.