“ACTS AND OMISSIONS”
The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, requested the courtroom to reply two questions.
First, what obligations do states have beneath worldwide legislation to guard the Earth’s local weather from polluting greenhouse fuel emissions?
Second, what are the authorized penalties for states which “by their acts and omissions have brought about vital hurt to the local weather system and different components of the surroundings?”
The second query was explicitly linked to the harm that local weather change is inflicting to small, extra weak, international locations and their populations.
This is applicable to international locations dealing with more and more damaging climate disasters and particularly to island nations beneath risk from rising sea ranges like these within the Pacific Ocean.
“DAVID VS GOLIATH”
In what was termed a “David versus Goliath” battle, superior economies and growing nations clashed on the ICJ throughout December hearings on the case.
The enduring Peace Palace within the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, performed host to greater than 100 oral submissions — the biggest quantity ever, many from tiny states making their first look.
“This could be essentially the most consequential case within the historical past of humanity,” mentioned Vanuatu’s consultant Ralph Regenvanu, opening the 2 weeks of hearings.
“The result of those proceedings will reverberate throughout generations, figuring out the destiny of countries like mine and the way forward for our planet,” he informed the 15-judge panel.
Main polluters argued the UN Framework Conference on Local weather Change (UNFCCC) was adequate and new tips on international locations’ obligations weren’t crucial.
US consultant Margaret Taylor mentioned this framework was “essentially the most present expression of states’ consent to be certain by worldwide legislation in respect of local weather change”.
Taylor urged the courtroom “to make sure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime”.
In the meantime, the speaker from India was much more express.
“The courtroom ought to keep away from the creation of any new or extra obligations past these already present beneath the local weather change regime,” mentioned Luther Rangreji.
The USA beneath President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris local weather settlement.
“WATERY GRACES”
However smaller states mentioned this framework was insufficient to mitigate local weather change’s devastating results.
“As seas rise quicker than predicted, these states should cease.
“This courtroom should not allow them to sentence our lands and our folks to watery graves,” mentioned John Silk from the Marshall Islands.
After bitterly fought UN local weather talks in Azerbaijan in November, rich international locations agreed to offer at the very least $300 billion a 12 months by 2035 to assist growing nations transition to scrub power and put together for a rise in excessive climate.
The weak nations argued that is merely not sufficient and urged the ICJ to push for extra.
“This can be a disaster of survival. Additionally it is a disaster of fairness,” mentioned Fiji’s consultant Luke Daunivalu.
“Our folks … are unfairly and unjustly footing the invoice for a disaster they didn’t create.
“They give the impression of being to this courtroom for readability, for decisiveness and justice.”
