The UN Assembly seeks an opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the obligations of nations towards addressing climate change
On 29th March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution tasking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an advisory opinion clarifying what the obligation of nations in addressing climate change are, under international law.
The resolution was sponsored by the small island state of Vanuatu and was adopted by consensus. This development drew praise from international law and environmental experts and environmental advocates for its potential to provide the much needed legal clarity in this field. In praising the Assembly for adopting the resolution, the UN Secretary General Mr. Antonio Guterres said; “Climate justice is both a moral imperative and prerequisite for effective global climate action.” He further mentioned, “The climate crisis can only be overcome through cooperation between people, cultures, nations and generations. But festering climate injustice feeds divisions and threatens to paralyze global climate action.”
This resolution considers the disparity that exists between the measures countries have outlined in their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement and the actual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions required to stay within the agreement’s temperature limits.
Under the resolution, the ICJ is tasked to consider not only what states are legally required to do under international law to avert further climate change both now and in the future, but also to assess the legal consequences under their obligations when countries, both through what they do and fail to do, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment. The court is requested to specifically consider what this harm means for both current and future generations, as well as for those countries who by virtue of their geographical circumstances and level of development are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.
The resolution comes at a critical time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just recently wrapped up its Sixth Assessment Cycle where it confirmed that the world was far from the 1.5C limit as desired under the Paris Agreement. The IPCC indicated that there were verified options available for averting the worst impacts of climate change, so long as countries and other stakeholders acted now.
This resolution also comes at a time when the world is preparing for the 28th UN Climate Conference (COP 28) in November to be held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This meeting will among others be seeking the confirmation of the first global stock count under the Paris Agreement, showing how close the world has come to achieving the objectives under the Agreement and how much work remains.
Whereas the ICJ advisory opinions are not directly binding on states, they provide an administrative interpretation of international law, which is binding upon states through custom, traditions and treaties. We can only hope that the advisory opinion would be delivered in a short period of time, so that the much sought after guidance is timely.
It should be noted that this request for an opinion has been preceded by a series of developments in recent years to advance sustainable development and encourage countries to take more ambitious steps on climate change mitigation, adaptation and finance. Recent examples include; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the UN member States in 2015 and the more recent UN Assembly resolution adopted last year on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. These developments over time evidence the global consensus on the necessity of climate action and the significance of sustainable development.
In conclusion, the ICJ opinion is timely and likely to have a critical impact in boosting national efforts to implement sustainable development policies. For instance, the ICJ opinion could provide greater detail and clarity to the principles used for judging states’ sustainable development polices in line with implementation of the Paris Agreement targets. The court’s opinion could also motivate greater ambition and action under international processes that aim to address different aspects of the climate challenge.
