.png)
Image source - Evans Dims
This article was originally published on Dec 10, 2024
Since the second of December, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held hearings regarding states’ responsibility for climate change as well as their obligation to finance climate action. These hearings follow an appeal, from the Pacific Island nation Vanuatu, for a legal opinion on the international legal obligations to reduce climate change. The ICJ will hear testimonies from nearly 100 countries ranging from those most impacted by climate change as well as the world’s biggest emitters, the US and China. However, the ICJ’s advisory opinion isn’t legally binding, although it could provide clarification for other climate change lawsuits, especially regarding financial compensation. This case could set an important precedent for future financial aid, such as supporting COP29’s new finance goal of an annual $300 billion by 2035.
Still, this ICJ case follows the trend of UN climate action being largely rhetorical, whilst relying on the hope that states’ national commitments will actualise climate action. The UN’s efforts to coordinate an international response and elevate the voices of marginal states is important. However, this work is arguably futile without the commitment of states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and finance the mitigation of climate disasters. For example, some criticisms of COP28 were the use of buzzwords such as disaster and climate mitigation budgets which satisfy public concerns in the short-term, but don’t result in tangible action.
Sadly, the protection of people and the environment rests on the will of the richest nations to put the needs of those disproportionately affected by climate change first. This is exemplified by Hardin’s parable the ‘tragedy of the commons’. The global atmosphere is a common sink for waste pollutants generated by consumption. Individual actors benefit from maximum exploitation of the commons, while the cost of climate change is shared amongst everyone else. The rational, economic actions of individual actors are at odds with the collective. While small islands and low-lying coastal areas as well as developing nations with weak infrastructure face the consequences, the polluters have no individual incentive to reduce their emissions.
This is the current reality, as students and officials in Pacific Island nations have appealed to the ICJ as well as AOSIS and the Least Developing Countries bloc walking out of COP29. Meanwhile, Trump, the president elect of the biggest historical emitter has promised to reduce US climate action and pull out of the UN’s Paris Agreement. This suggests that the biggest polluters and richest states would have to be personally impacted by climate change to initiate change. But by then, will it be too late?
The ICJ is set to provide a ruling in 2025, however the power of this case to support calls for more significant climate finance is questionable. Although, there is hope that a ruling from the UN’s top court might inflame today’s more climate conscious public to hold officials accountable to international climate goals.
Sources
https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/frequently-asked-questions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4r03ngw1go#:~:text=Top%20UN%20court%20to%
20rule%20on%20key%20climate%20questions&text=The%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice
,to%20get%20a%20legal%20opinion.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop29-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-baku/
.svg)
Access all articles, events, career resources, and our regularly updated News Matrix. It's free!
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
