During the first two weeks of December, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hosted hearings focused on how countries are legally required to tackle climate change. This inquiry was initiated at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. The court is looking into the financial responsibilities of nations for their roles in climate change and the actions they must undertake to combat its effects. A key debate surfaced over whether there is a recognized right to a clean and healthy environment in international law.
The ICJ, established in 1945 under the UN Charter, provides a legal platform for countries to resolve disputes. Often referred to as the World Court, it consists of 15 judges elected for nine-year terms. Each country can have only one judge serving at any given time.
The request for an advisory opinion on the legal obligations regarding climate change came from Vanuatu on March 29, 2023. Although this opinion will not be legally binding, it could influence future court decisions related to climate matters and guide legislative actions globally.
The hearings began on December 2, featuring presentations from Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Over 100 countries contributed, offering oral statements throughout the hearings, which lasted until December 13.
Much of the legal discussions centered on the Paris Agreement and the obligations it places on countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A significant question that arose was whether there is a human right to a clean environment.
Developing nations argue that existing agreements like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement are just starting points. They claim that climate change impacts violate human rights as outlined in international law. Consequently, nations responsible for greenhouse gas emissions should be held accountable and consider reparations for vulnerable countries facing the brunt of climate change.
This viewpoint has gained traction in various international courts. For instance, in April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights recognized the right to protection against climate impacts as a fundamental human right, linking it to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Paris Agreement.
Similarly, in May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that countries must prevent climate change to protect marine environments, reinforcing obligations under international maritime law.
As the hearings concluded, judges, including Judge Sarah Cleveland from the US and Judge Hilary Charlesworth from Australia, posed important questions. One such question focused on whether there truly is a right to a healthy environment.
Responses varied significantly. The US argued that no global treaties currently recognize this right and that establishing such a right must align with existing rules of international law. The UK echoed this sentiment, insisting that no customary international law exists for a right to a healthy environment.
Conversely, some countries like Thailand contended that the right to a clean environment is implied in other human rights. They highlighted that enjoying rights like health and life necessitates a safe and clean environment. Samoa and Sri Lanka also supported this idea, asserting that this right has evolved over time within customary international law.
Other nations and organizations offered perspectives as well. For example, Mexico emphasized that the right to a healthy environment encompasses both necessary conditions and participation in environmental decision-making. Meanwhile, the African Union noted that this right has been recognized in various treaties and is becoming part of customary international law.
As debates over climate change and human rights continue, the ICJ’s advisory opinion could set a significant precedent for how nations understand their legal obligations in protecting not only the environment but also human rights.
Source link
international court of justice,ICJ,climate change,human rights,world court
