Unlocking the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion: What It Means for Climate Change Action

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is poised to release an important advisory opinion on climate change, addressing countries’ legal responsibilities. This opinion could reshape international climate action, making commitments enforceable and clarifying responsibilities regarding emissions and human rights.

On March 29, 2023, the UN General Assembly voted to request this advisory opinion, following a campaign led by the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC). Since 2019, young activists from the Pacific Islands have been pushing for this moment. Their initiative aimed to raise awareness among Pacific leaders about climate change’s urgent implications for human rights.

Vanuatu, a small island nation particularly vulnerable to climate impacts, stepped up in support. Its Prime Minister, Bob Loughman, emphasized that this campaign is not just about survival—it’s a push for ambition and justice, especially for youth. Despite contributing less than 1% of global greenhouse gases, the Pacific Islands face rising sea levels and extreme weather due to climate change. According to a 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their survival hangs in the balance without immediate action.

In August 2022, Vanuatu proposed this advisory opinion to the ICJ, which was agreed upon by all Pacific Island Forum members. The UNGA recognized climate change as a monumental challenge, stressing that our response will affect future generations.

The advisory opinion carries legal weight, although it isn’t binding. It aims to clarify what countries must do to combat climate change and highlight the legal consequences of failing to act. This could provide essential guidance not just for nations, but for shaping future international law.

Vishal Prasad, from PISFCC, believes the ICJ’s opinion could help settle disputes about nations’ obligations and inspire collective action. Recent submissions to the court included contributions from 91 states and numerous organizations. Many of these submissions came from climate-vulnerable nations that described personal stories about how climate change affects their communities.

During hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague, significant divisions emerged. While many nations acknowledged climate change, there was disagreement over who should bear responsibility for the crisis. Major greenhouse gas emitters like the US and Australia resisted calls for legally binding accountability, drawing criticism for sidestepping their roles. The discussions also brought attention to human rights, with calls for equality amidst climate action.

Despite these challenges, Prasad remains hopeful that the ICJ will affirm the necessity for countries to protect the environment for future generations. Legal experts, including Joie Chowdhury from the Center for International Environmental Law, believe this ruling can influence domestic laws and inspire greater accountability in international climate agreements.

This advisory opinion is more than just legal jargon—it could pave the way for a more just world, giving a voice to those who suffer the most from climate change. As we await the court’s decision on July 23, the stakes couldn’t be higher for millions around the globe.

Source link