THE HAGUE: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will this week issue a groundbreaking legal framework addressing climate change, defining nations’ responsibilities to curb emissions and protect vulnerable countries. The ruling, though non-binding, is expected to influence global climate litigation, policy, and international law.
Experts describe the advisory opinion as the most significant legal development in climate action, with potential ripple effects for governments and corporations. Climate-vulnerable nations and activists hope it will unify existing laws, drive stronger policies, and impact ongoing court cases.
“It will be the compass the world needs to course correct,“ said Vishal Prasad of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. “It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet.”
Critics, however, argue the ruling lacks enforceability, as major polluters may disregard it. The case stems from a UN request initiated by Vanuatu, seeking clarity on states’ obligations to prevent climate harm and the legal consequences for those causing environmental damage.
The ICJ hearings in December saw heated debates between wealthy and developing nations. Small island states, facing existential threats from rising seas, urged stronger action, while major emitters insisted existing climate agreements suffice.
“This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,“ said Vanuatu’s Ralph Regenvanu. “The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet.”
The US and India opposed expanding legal obligations, with India’s representative stating, “The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime.”
Meanwhile, vulnerable nations stressed the inadequacy of current measures. “As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop,“ said John Silk of the Marshall Islands. “This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves.”
The ruling follows contentious UN climate talks in Azerbaijan, where wealthy nations pledged $300 billion annually by 2035 for climate adaptation—a sum smaller states deem insufficient. - AFP
