The Philippines and Bangladesh have urged the ICJ to declare climate change a violation of international law during landmark hearings in The Hague. This appeal follows COP29’s disappointing outcomes for climate finance for developing nations. The hearings are seen as a crucial step towards clarifying nations’ legal responsibilities regarding climate action. A strong advisory opinion from the ICJ could significantly impact future climate negotiations and accountability for climate damages.
The Philippines and Bangladesh have formally requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to recognize climate change as a violation of international law, amid ongoing hearings at the court in The Hague. This appeal, viewed as pivotal for climate reparations, is situated in the wake of an unsatisfactory outcome from COP29 regarding climate finance commitments for developing nations vulnerable to climate change. The hearings also represent the culmination of efforts by Pacific students and small island states to define the legal obligations of nations concerning climate action.
During the hearings, the Philippines articulated the necessity for nations to adhere to obligations that prevent transboundary environmental harm. Carlos Sorreta, the permanent representative of the Philippines to the United Nations, argued that the failure of states to curb harmful activities triggers their internationally wrongful conduct, requiring them to cease such actions and provide reparations. He referenced the Philippines’ constitutional provision for environmental rights, suggesting its potential implementation at a global level.
Bangladesh added that climate change constitutes a human rights issue and emphasized the court’s vital role in addressing injustices arising from climate inaction by major polluters. Tareque Muhammad, Bangladesh’s ambassador to the Netherlands, expressed confidence in the court’s ability to deliver a robust advisory opinion that recognizes the grave implications of climate change for affected states.
Other nations, including Indonesia, presented contrasting views, arguing that international law presently lacks enforceable obligations to protect the climate. This perspective was critiqued by youth-led movements advocating for climate justice, who labeled it as a restrictive view of legal responsibilities surrounding climate challenges.
Moreover, major emitters like the United States and China defended existing frameworks, asserting that treaties such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement suffice. Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, cautioned against misinterpretations of the Paris Agreement that could absolve countries of their climate responsibilities.
Legal experts following the proceedings suggest that a strong advisory opinion from the ICJ could clarify international obligations and empower climate-vulnerable nations at future negotiations, particularly COP30 scheduled for November 2024 in Belém, Brazil. This opinion may enhance accountability for polluters concerning climate-related damages and provide a clearer basis for pursuing loss and damage funds, which have thus far garnered only minimal commitments. Ultimately, the ICJ’s guidance could play a crucial role in shaping a legally accountable international framework for climate action.
The request by the Philippines and Bangladesh to the International Court of Justice seeks to elevate the conversation surrounding climate change and international law, especially in the context of climate reparations. These requests are particularly timely following the results of COP29, where the climate finance commitments were deemed inadequate by developing countries highly susceptible to climate-related disasters. Past experiences of escalating natural disasters in nations such as the Philippines and Bangladesh underscore the urgency of this appeal, demanding clarity on legal responsibilities regarding climate change. Moreover, the ICJ hearings are the result of collective pressure from vulnerable states aiming to define state obligations clearly in relation to climate governance and justice.
In conclusion, the ongoing hearings at the International Court of Justice mark a significant development in the pursuit of legal recognition for climate change as a violation of international law. The Philippines and Bangladesh’s assertions highlight the pressing need for accountability among major emitting nations, particularly in relation to human rights and environmental protection. A strong advisory opinion could potentially reshape the legal landscape for climate action and bolster the positions of climate-vulnerable nations in future international negotiations.
Original Source: www.eco-business.com
