Why in news?

The annual climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, ended with disappointment for developing nations, as developed countries agreed to mobilize only $300 billion annually in climate finance, far below the $1.3 trillion demanded based on assessed needs. This decision highlights the ongoing failure of developed nations to meet their climate finance and emission reduction responsibilities.

In response, developing nations, especially small island states, have escalated the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

On December 2, the ICJ began hearings on a case seeking an advisory opinion on the obligations of countries under international laws regarding climate change and the legal consequences of those obligations.

What’s in today’s article?

• International Court of Justice (ICJ)
• Background – the case
• Significance of this hearing

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

• About
  • The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN).
  • It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
  • The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands).
    • It is the only one of the six principal organs of the UN that is not located in New York City.
  • English and French are the ICJ’s official languages.
• Role
  
  • to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and
  • to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
• Judges
  • The ICJ has 15 judges who are elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and Security Council, which vote simultaneously but separately.
  • The president and vice-president of the court are elected for three-year terms by secret ballot. Judges are eligible for re-election.
• Members and Jurisdiction
  • All members of the UN are automatically parties to the ICJ statute. However, this does not automatically give the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes involving them.
    • The ICJ gets jurisdiction only if both parties consent to it.
  • The judgment of the ICJ is final and technically binding on the parties to a case.
    • There is no provision of appeal. It can at the most, be subject to interpretation or, upon the discovery of a new fact, revision.

Background – the case

• UNGA Resolution Initiated by Vanuatu
  • The case stems from a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution passed in March 2023, led by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation severely threatened by rising sea levels.
  • Vanuatu proposed seeking an ICJ advisory opinion on climate obligations in September 2021.
  • The resolution, co-sponsored by 132 countries, received broad international support.
    • India had not joined the overwhelming majority of countries that co-sponsored the draft resolution.
• Key Questions Raised in the Resolution
  • The resolution seeks answers to two critical questions:
    • What are the obligations of countries under international law to protect the climate system?
    • What are the legal consequences for countries failing to meet these obligations and causing harm to the climate system?
• Purpose of ICJ Advisory Opinion
• The UNGA resolution requests the ICJ to clarify the climate obligations of countries in light of these international laws and assess the legal consequences for non-compliance.
• Relevant International Legal Instruments dealing with the issue
  • While the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement are central to climate law, the resolution also invokes other legal frameworks, including:
    • UN Convention on the Law of the Seas; Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention to Combat Desertification
    • Universal Declaration on Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; UN Charter
• India’s Role in the Hearings
  • India is scheduled to make its submission on December 5.
    • It should be noted that, India was among the countries which voiced concerns about whether launching a judicial process was the best way to reach shared goals.
    • Successfully tackling the climate crisis is best achieved via diplomatic efforts.
    • As per India, top-down approach is not needed in the discussion around climate change.

Significance of this hearing

• Nature and Potential Impact of the ICJ Advisory Opinion
  • The hearing aims to produce an advisory opinion based on the UNGA resolution.
  • While non-binding, the opinion could significantly influence global climate governance by broadening the legal basis for climate obligations and highlighting consequences for non-compliance.
• Historical Context of Climate Obligations
  • Under the UNFCCC, about 40 developed countries were identified as primarily responsible for historical emissions.
  • However, these countries have largely evaded these responsibilities, often shifting some burdens onto developing nations.
• Expanding the Basis of Climate Obligations
  • The ICJ ruling may show that developed nations’ climate obligations extend beyond the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement to other international legal frameworks.
  • This could introduce new arguments in climate negotiations and bolster small island states’ claims for compensation for climate-related damages.
• Potential Precedent for Climate Litigation
  • An ICJ advisory opinion could strengthen thousands of climate lawsuits worldwide.
  • As of 2023, over 2,600 cases have been filed globally, with several landmark rulings already delivered.
  • For instance, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Switzerland’s failure to meet emission targets violated its citizens' human rights.
  • In April 2023, India’s Supreme Court expanded fundamental rights to include protection from adverse climate impacts.