Climate Change's Dire Consequences Laid Bare at International Court of Justice Hearnings

2 weeks ago 35

ARTICLE AD

The International Court of Justice is hearing 10 days of testimony in order to give an advisory opinion on climate change obligations. Credit: ICJby Umar Manzoor Shah (the hague & srinagar)Wednesday, December 04, 2024Inter Press Service

THE HAGUE & SRINAGAR, Dec 04 (IPS) - The International Court of Justice in the Hague heard about the cascading effects of climate change, including its impact for Indigenous communities, during day two of ten days of hearings. The court is deliberating on the obligations under international law of UN member states to protect people and ecosystems from climate change.At the International Court of Justice on Tuesday, December 4, 2024, Brazil called for climate justice, and Canada urged swift action on the world's "greatest challenge," while China advocated for equity and development rights. These countries are among the 98 that will make presentations during the fortnight of hearings, after which the court will give an advisory opinion.

The court’s forthcoming advisory opinion, expected in 2025, is seen as a critical step in delineating states’ responsibilities for addressing climate change and addressing the consequences of inaction.

The proceedings draw on international environmental law, human rights treaties, and multilateral agreements. On December 3, representatives from Brazil, Canada, and China presented their arguments emphasizing the urgency of collective action and climate justice.

Brazil's Vision of Inclusivity Where No One is Left Behind

Representing Brazil, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, the nation’s Ambassador for Climate Change, highlighted Brazil’s vulnerability to climate change and its leadership in global climate governance. Figueiredo underscored Brazil’s proactive measures, including a revised Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that pledges to cut emissions by up to 67 percent by 2035 relative to 2005 levels.

“Brazil has consistently championed international cooperation in addressing climate challenges. Our efforts, despite socio-economic constraints, reflect a vision of inclusivity where no one is left behind,” said Figueiredo.

He emphasized Brazil's exposure to climate-induced disasters such as severe droughts, floods, and wildfires, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, including Indigenous communities. Advocating for climate justice, he urged global actors to consider the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDRRC), which assigns greater responsibility to historically high-emitting nations.

Legal Arguments for Climate Equity

Brazil’s legal advisor, Professor Jorge Galindo, reinforced the CBDRRC principle as a legal mechanism for ensuring fairness in climate governance. Citing precedents from the Paris Agreement and advisory opinions from international tribunals, he called for developed nations to lead by achieving net-zero emissions sooner, investing in clean technologies, and offering financial support to developing countries.

Galindo also urged the ICJ to recognize the legal value of decisions made by the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “COP decisions reflect genuine interpretations of treaty obligations and must guide the court’s opinion,” he said.

Galindo further stressed the importance of balancing climate policies with trade obligations, warning against the misuse of environmental measures as trade barriers. “Free trade and climate goals must coexist,” he added.

Canada committed to unified treaty-based approach

Canada’s representative, Louis Martel, described climate change as a profound threat, with the Arctic warming three times faster than the global average. Martel highlighted its cascading effects, including permafrost thaw, increased forest fires, and food insecurity for Indigenous communities.

Reaffirming Canada’s commitment to international climate instruments like the Paris Agreement, Martel emphasized the importance of collective and individual state responsibilities. He called attention to the global stocktake and enhanced transparency framework as essential mechanisms for ensuring accountability.

While supporting the "no harm" principle obligating states to prevent cross-border environmental harm, Martel expressed reservations about its consistent application to climate change under customary international law. He also questioned whether principles like "polluter pays" and "intergenerational equity" have achieved the status of binding legal norms.

“Canada remains committed to a unified treaty-based approach that strengthens global climate governance,” Martel said.

China Plea For Fair and Inclusive International Approach

China, represented by Ma Xinmin, advocated for equitable climate action, highlighting the principle of CBDRRC as fundamental to balancing responsibilities between developed and developing nations. Ma underscored the disproportionate vulnerabilities of developing countries and the necessity of recognizing their right to sustainable development.

China criticized unilateral measures by developed nations, such as trade restrictions targeting developing countries’ green industries, describing them as counterproductive to global climate goals. Instead, Ma urged collaboration that accounts for historical emissions and respects nations' varied capacities to combat climate change.

“Addressing climate change involves not only emission reductions but also ensuring sustainable development and poverty eradication,” Ma argued. Highlighting China's contributions, he reaffirmed the country’s commitment to climate action while calling for a fair and inclusive international approach.