The ICJ is holding historic hearings on climate change (Robin van Lonkhuijsen)
Robin van Lonkhuijsen/ANP/AFP PHOTO
By AFP - Agence France Presse
David vs. Goliath battle at ICJ climate hearings
Richard CARTER
Halfway through the marathon climate change hearings at the world's top court, the battle lines are being drawn between developed countries asking judges to stick to current legal obligations and vulnerable nations asking for more.
History is being made at the International Court of Justice, with the largest number of countries and institutions seeking to influence the judges in drawing up a legal framework for the global fight against climate change.
Most of the major economies, including the United States, China, and India, have argued that the court should not interfere with the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Speaking in the splendor of the ICJ's Great Hall of Justice, the US representative said that this framework was “the most up-to-date expression of the consent of states to be bound by international law concerning climate change.”
Margaret Taylor asked the panel of 15 ICJ judges to “ensure that their opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime.”
Representatives of other major polluters, such as China and India, also spoke out similarly, as did Australia and Germany.
India was perhaps the most outspoken, warning the court against piling on more legal obligations for states.
“The court should avoid creating new or additional obligations on top of those already existing in the climate change regime,” said its representative Luther Rangreji.
On the other side of the debate were representatives of small island nations, some of them taking the floor at the ICJ for the first time in their countries' history, many in colorful national costumes.
Many of them argued, using powerful examples of loss and devastation, that their homelands were being destroyed by climate change, a phenomenon they had nothing to do with.
“This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,” said the Fijian representative, offering compelling testimony of people being uprooted from their ancestral lands.
“Our people... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis that was not created by them. They come to this court seeking clarity, a decision, and justice,” he added.
“Your legal guidance will resonate for generations to come, forming a legacy of responsibility, protection, and hope for all people,” Luke Daunivalu told the judges.
More than 100 countries and organizations are taking part in the hearings, which enter their second week on Monday.
After months or even years of deliberation, the ICJ will produce a non-binding advisory opinion - a new blueprint for international climate change law.
- 'Together in this canoe' -
The statements by the rich countries and the main polluters have provoked the fury of activists. They accuse them of “hiding behind” existing agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, seen by many as insufficient to tackle the problem.
“We're seeing a real David versus Goliath battle,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, based in the US and Switzerland.
“Some of the world's biggest polluters, such as the US and Australia, have effectively tried to sweep under the carpet the historical conduct and long-standing knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change,” she said.
At the heart of the issue is money.
The United Nations asked the ICJ to rule on two separate questions.
Firstly, what were the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change?
Secondly, what were the consequences for states that harmed the environment, especially the most vulnerable countries?
Developing countries have been frustrated by the money earmarked to combat the effects of climate change, the most recent example being the $300 billion a year until 2035 pledged at COP29 in Baku.
The text “encourages” developing countries to “make contributions” that would remain “voluntary.”
Many smaller countries have made a powerful case to ICJ judges for more equitable contributions, which, in some cases, would be their only salvation.
One of the most colorful requests came from John Silk, representing the Marshall Islands.
“When I walk our coastlines, I see more than eroding shorelines, I see the disappearing footprints of generations of Marshallese who lived in harmony on these islands,” Silk told the court.
“The Marshallese people have a saying: ‘Wa kuk wa jimor’, which means ‘We are in this canoe together’.”
“Today, I extend that principle to our global community.”
ric/jj/rsc
Comments