UN World Court concludes landmark hearings on States’ responsibility for climate change
Small Island States are in peril
UN World Court concludes landmark hearings on States’ responsibility for climate change
Small Island States are in peril and call for justice,
Direct from UN NEWS:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held historic non-binding hearings from 2 to 13 December addressing States’ obligations under international law to combat climate change, a process spearheaded by small island nations facing existential threats.
The proceedings have particular importance for the small island developing States which initially pushed for the opinion. Significantly, they are taking place just one week after developing nations criticized a deal at COP29 to provide $300 billion a year in climate finance by 2035, calling the agreement “insulting” and arguing it did not give them the vital resources they require to truly address the complexities of the climate crisis.
The hearings opened with an appeal from Vanuatu and Melanesian Spearhead Group, representing nations most vulnerable to climate change.
“The outcome of these historic proceedings will have repercussions for generations to come, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change.
The Pacific Island nation highlighted the catastrophic impacts of rising seas and extreme weather, calling the failures of high-emitting States “illicit”.
The country’s Attorney General Arnold Kiel Loughman argued that “the failure of a handful of high-emitting states to meet their obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act,” as they have brought humanity “to the brink of the abyss.”
Small island developing States (SIDS), represented by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), echoed these calls.
They asked the World Court to affirm principles of international law that address sea-level rise, including the recognition of maritime zones and statehood even if territories are inundated.
The United States acknowledged the severity of the climate crisis but argued that international treaties like the Paris Agreement are not legally binding.
Margaret Taylor, the US representative, also rejected the notion that “common but differentiated responsibilities” is a fundamental principle of international law.
On the other hand, the European Union (EU) emphasised cooperation and stressed the non-adversarial nature of the advisory proceedings.
EU representatives pointed
Read more at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158476