The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to open hearings on Monday in what is being described as a landmark climate change case, examining the legal responsibilities of countries worldwide in combating climate change and helping vulnerable nations tackle its devastating impacts. This unprecedented case marks a significant milestone in the global fight against climate change, and it follows years of lobbying by island nations, particularly in the Pacific, who fear their very survival is at risk from rising sea levels and other climate-related impacts.
In 2023, after persistent efforts from small island states, the United Nations General Assembly called on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” This legal query seeks to clarify the specific responsibilities of countries under international law to prevent the climate crisis from worsening and to address the damage caused by human-made greenhouse gas emissions. The hearings will see lawyers and representatives from over 100 countries and organizations presenting their cases before the ICJ in The Hague.
The hearings are expected to cover two critical questions: What legal obligations do states have to protect the environment from human-induced climate change? And what are the legal consequences for countries whose actions or inactions have caused significant harm to the global climate? While the ICJ’s advisory opinion is non-binding, it holds significant legal and political weight and could pave the way for stronger climate action on the global stage.
The case has already had a profound impact, with Pacific island nations playing a key role in driving the legal campaign. Vanuatu will be the first country to present its arguments, with the hearings running until December 13. The ICJ’s advisory opinion will be delivered in 2025, but the effects of the case are already being felt as governments and organizations prepare to defend their positions on climate change. The campaign for the ICJ to address climate change began in classrooms in the Pacific in 2019, when a group of students, inspired by the urgency of the climate crisis, pushed to bring the issue before the world’s highest court.
“Climate change for us is not a distant threat,” said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, a group that was instrumental in bringing the case to the ICJ. “It is reshaping our lives right now. Our islands are at risk. Our communities face disruptive change at a rate and scale that generations before us have not known,” Prasad said, emphasizing the real-time, devastating impact of the crisis on Pacific island communities.
The hearings come just a week after the COP29 summit, where island nations and other developing countries denounced the climate finance agreement as inadequate. Wealthy nations at COP29 committed to providing $300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer countries cope with the impacts of climate change. However, this figure falls significantly short of the $1.3 trillion that experts and affected nations believe is needed. Pacific climate activists have repeatedly criticized the outcomes of COP summits for failing to meet the scale of the crisis.
“The COP process, for all its talk, continues to fail us,” said Dylan Kava, regional facilitator at the Pacific Island Climate Action Network. “Every fraction of a degree of warming translates to real losses: homes swallowed by the sea, crops destroyed by salinity, and cultures at risk of extinction. Pacific nations are left grappling with escalating costs of adaptation and recovery, often relying on meagre resources and the resilience of our people,” Kava added.
Papua New Guinea, one of the Pacific nations participating in the ICJ hearings, will present its submission on December 6. Papua New Guinea’s Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Pila Niningi, expressed the importance of the ICJ’s opinion in clarifying the legal responsibilities of states to combat climate change and protect human rights. “The ICJ’s advisory opinion will help clarify the legal responsibilities of states in combating climate change, offering guidance on their obligations under international law, including human rights and environmental treaties,” Niningi said.
The ICJ case is not only a crucial moment for the Pacific but also for the international community, as it could set a legal precedent for climate action. The outcome of this case may influence future legal decisions and spark more robust international efforts to combat climate change, pushing nations to take more significant and urgent action in the face of an existential global threat.
With the IPCC’s findings on the scientific evidence of climate change already well-established, the legal questions raised by the ICJ are becoming more pressing than ever. This case will provide the global community with clarity on what nations are required to do under international law, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable populations from the effects of climate change. In addition to the Pacific island states, countries like Papua New Guinea, the Maldives, and other vulnerable regions are closely watching the proceedings, hoping that the ICJ will recognize the urgent need for stronger legal frameworks that mandate climate action and accountability.
While the ICJ’s advisory opinion cannot directly force governments into action, its legal and political ramifications could serve as the foundation for future litigation and mobilize further international efforts to mitigate the climate crisis. As countries and organizations continue to present their arguments before the court, the world’s eyes will be on The Hague, where the battle for climate justice is unfolding.
