The United States has drawn sharp criticism from climate justice advocates after arguing against legally binding obligations for nations to address the climate crisis. This stance was presented during a historic climate hearing at the international Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
The hearing, initiated by island nations and other climate-vulnerable countries, seeks to hold wealthy, polluting nations accountable for their historical contributions to climate change. As climate disasters intensify globally, with little hope that current climate pledges will sufficiently curb rising temperatures, the US and other fossil fuel-dependent nations continue to expand production.
The US, however, maintains that existing non-binding treaties, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement, are the most effective approach. Margaret Taylor, legal adviser at the State Department, told ICJ judges that these agreements represent “the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change.”
“Any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime,” Taylor added.
Climate justice activists reacted with outrage. “Once again, we witness a disheartening attempt by the US to evade its responsibilities as one of the world’s largest polluters,” said Vishal prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. “The US is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical duty,disregard human rights and reject climate justice.”
“It is absurd for the Biden administration to argue before the ICJ that countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution, especially as it prepares to turn over the executive office to a proven climate denier like president-elect Trump, whose policies are likely to deeply harm US climate action,” stated Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America’s climate justice director.
Major fossil fuel economies like Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia also opposed the call for legal accountability championed by developing nations.
After years of advocacy by vulnerable nations and the global climate justice movement, the UN requested the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on the legal obligations states have to address climate change and the potential consequences of inaction. Over two weeks,more than 100 countries and organizations are presenting their cases. Many hope the hearings will elevate scientific evidence, ensuring international law reflects the realities of climate breakdown and the urgent need for transformative action.
While ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant weight and are frequently enough cited in future climate litigation and international negotiations. This case is expected to be a landmark document in the fight for climate justice.
The nations most vulnerable to climate change, primarily Pacific Island nations led by Vanuatu, are demanding fair financial support and compensation for irreversible loss and damage caused by the states most responsible. They face an existential threat from rising sea levels, floods, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is facing pressure to hold major polluters accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation acutely vulnerable to climate change impacts, has expressed disappointment with the United states and other large emitters for their inaction.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change, stated on Wednesday, “These nations, some of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate ample reductions in emissions … these treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability.”
The ICJ is currently deliberating on an advisory opinion regarding the legal obligations of states in addressing climate change. This comes after the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Itlos) ruled earlier this year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that states have a legal duty to control, exceeding the scope of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
However, the ICJ’s role in assigning responsibility for past emissions remains unclear. US representative, taylor, suggested that the ICJ advisory proceeding is not the appropriate forum to determine liability for past climate pollution or reparations. “An advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate whether individual states or groups of states have violated obligations pertaining to climate change in the past or bear responsibility for reparations … nor would it be appropriate to do so,” she said.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is also examining the climate crisis and held hearings in Barbados and Brazil earlier this year. Its opinion is expected before the ICJ’s ruling, which is anticipated to take several months.
The ICJ’s decision carries significant weight, as it could set a precedent for international climate law and perhaps pave the way for holding major emitters accountable for their historical contributions to the climate crisis.
## “A Blow to Climate Justice?”: Expert breaks Down US Stance at ICJ Climate Hearing
**World Today News:** thank you for joining us,Dr. Anya Petrova. You’re a leading expert on environmental law and international relations.
**Dr. Petrova:** It’s a pleasure to be here.
** WT:** The United States’ position at the recent international Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing regarding climate change has sparked considerable controversy. can you explain what happened, and why there’s so much outrage?
**Dr. Petrova:** The ICJ was asked to provide an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of states to address climate change. This is a landmark case brought by small island nations and othre vulnerable states who are bearing the brunt of climate disasters today. They’re essentially asking the court to declare that all countries have a legal duty to take meaningful action to combat climate change.
The united States,in a shocking move, argued against legally binding obligations for nations on climate action. They stated their preference for existing agreements like the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, which are non-binding.
**WT:** Why has this caused such a strong reaction?
**Dr. Petrova:** this stance is seen as a major setback for climate justice. Vulnerable countries see it as a betrayal by a country historically responsible for a large portion of global greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that voluntary pledges aren’t enough. We need concrete, legally enforced commitments to curb emissions and address the climate crisis.
Many critics see the US position as stalling tactic, a way to avoid accountability and maintain the status quo that benefits wealthy, polluting nations at the expense of the planet and its most vulnerable populations.
**WT:** how significant is the ICJ’s advisory opinion, and what impact could it have?
**Dr. Petrova:** Although the ICJ’s opinions aren’t legally binding in the traditional sense, they carry immense moral and political weight. They inform customary international law and can influence future legal developments.
A strong opinion from the ICJ, recognizing a stronger legal obligation for states to act on climate change, could embolden vulnerable countries in their negotiations and potentially lead to stronger international climate agreements in the future.
**WT:** Looking ahead, what are the implications of the US position?
**Dr. Petrova:** The US’s stance raises serious concerns about its commitment to addressing the climate crisis. It undermines international cooperation and casts doubt on the seriousness of the Biden administration’s stated climate goals.
The backlash from the international community will likely intensify, placing further pressure on the US to take a more ambitious and responsible position on climate action.
It remains to be seen whether this marks a turning point in international climate negotiations. However, one thing is clear: the fight for climate justice continues, and the world is watching closely to see if the US chooses to be part of the solution or remain an obstacle.
**WT:** Dr. Petrova, thank you for your insightful analysis.
**Dr. Petrova:** My pleasure.
