THERE IS awareness and will to implement policies to mitigate the impact of global warming. However, they are not binding, that is, they do not oblige any country to comply with them and, therefore, all the declarations adopted in conferences and forums on the subject end up being a ‘salute to the flag’.
This worrying situation that has prevented the objectives set for more than a decade to mitigate the impact of climate change and cool the planet, raising all the indicators of meteorological variation and global warming, led to a profound debate at the United Nations that concluded with a decision as “historic” as hopeful.
Thus, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution yesterday by consensus to request the opinion of international justice on the “obligations” of states in the fight against global warming.
With the adoption of this resolution sponsored by more than 130 states, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will have to give its opinion on “the obligations incumbent on states” in the protection of the climate system “for present and future generations”. . “An unprecedented challenge” for civilization, says the text.
“Together, they are writing history,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the delegates, estimating that, although not binding, the opinion of the UN judicial body could help world leaders “adopt the bolder and stronger climate action that the world so badly needs.”
He insisted on the importance of dthat opinion, stating that it would help states and the UN to take the bold climate action the world needs and It could guide the relations between the States and between them and their citizens, while reminding us that we are closing rapidly”.
“Those who contributed the least to the climate crisis are already facing hellish weather and high water. For some countries, climate threats are a death sentence,” said Guterres, while recalling that it was precisely the initiative of those countries that led to the vote on this resolution.
He ended with a forceful message: “The climate crisis can only be overcome through cooperation between peoples, cultures, nations, generations. But growing climate injustice fuels divisions and threatens to paralyze action” on this issue.
It is a “clear and strong message not only throughout the world but also for the future, that on this day, the peoples of the United Nations (…) have decided to put aside their differences and work together to face the main challenge of our time, climate warming,” said the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Ishmael Kalsakau, whose archipelago, one of the most vulnerable island states on the planet to climate change and which has been hit by two powerful cyclones in the space of a few days.
And it was the government of Vanuatu that launched this initiative in 2021 in 2021, after a group of students from the university of Fiji started a campaign to save their islands, on the front line of the impact of global warming.
The resolution requests the opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the legal consequences that States must face for their “acts and omissions that have caused significant damage to the climate system and other elements of the environment”, harming in particular small Island Developing States, which, “due to their geographical circumstances and their level of development, are especially affected by or are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”
It also asks the ICJ “what are the obligations that States have under international law to guarantee the protection of the climate system and other elements of the environment against anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases in favor of States and present and future generations.”
unpublished advance
A week ago, UN climate experts (Giec) and specifically the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that warming will increase +1.5º already in 2030-2035, compared to the industrial era, the goal most ambitious of the Paris Agreement. A reminder of the extreme urgency to act during this decade to guarantee a “livable future” for humanity.
However, they stressed that it is still possible to limit the increase in temperatures, but that there is less and less time to do so.
That study argued that human-caused climate change is already affecting many extreme weather and climate events in all regions of the world.
As the national commitments of states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not binding under the Paris Agreement, the resolution urges the use of other instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reacted from his office in Geneva to the decision of the Assembly, welcoming the “historic resolution”, which, he asserted, responds to the “pleas of the small island States whose very existence is endangered”.
“The advisory opinion will have enormous potential to more clearly focus such obligations, including towards people in vulnerable situations, and on international cooperation, as well as to provide guidance for future policy and litigation. This could be a major catalyst for urgent, ambitious, and equitable action needed to stop global warming and limit and remedy climate-induced damage to human rights,” Volker Türk said in a statement.
Türk insisted that “States have an obligation to mitigate and adapt to, and address loss and damage resulting from climate change. We look forward to sharing this experience in this very important process before the International Court of Justice. Ultimately, it is the common heritage of humanity, for present and future generations.”
For her part, and at a time when the European Court of Human Rights is holding a hearing on a first climate lawsuit against France and Switzerland, Shaina Sadai, from the Union of Concerned Scientists think tank, stated that “this resolution puts center human rights and equality between generations on the issue of climate change – two key elements generally absent from the mainstream discourse.
“Describing (the resolution) as the most important advance globally since the Paris Agreement seems accurate,” he added, as it is an “incredibly important step” as it can serve as a “guide” for national courts around the world. , who increasingly have to face more appeals against the states.
Although ICJ opinions are not binding, they carry significant legal and moral weight, which is often taken into account by national courts.
“Bigger Than Our Fears”
Vanuatu and its supporters hope that the future opinion expected two years from now will prompt governments to accelerate their actions, either on their own initiative or through judicial remedies against mushrooming states around the world.
An enthusiasm that not everyone shares.
“I don’t see the use of what the Court can say. Instead, I see scenarios in which this request could be counterproductive,” said Benoît Mayer, a specialist in international law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who even speaks of the risk of that the Court of The Hague “give a clear and precise opinion but contrary to what the plaintiffs want”.
The resolution also refers to the “actions” of the states responsible for warming and their “obligations” towards the small island states, as well as the populations of today and the future affected.
The Pacific youth who launched this initiative are elated.
“It was an opportunity to do something big, bigger than our fears, something important for future generations,” Cynthia Houniuhi, currently president of the NGO Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, explained at a press conference.
“I want to be able to show my son a photo of my island one day,” said the young woman from the Solomon Islands, threatened by rising sea levels and the multiplication of destructive cyclones./International Writing with United Nations