The Hague, Netherlands:

As marathon climate change hearings wrapped up Friday at the world’s top court, a representative for vulnerable nations voiced “huge disappointment” at the attitude of top polluters and urged judges to make them legally accountable for historic emissions.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has played host to history over the past 10 days, with a record number of nations and organisations addressing the court.

More than 100 speakers have presented, ranging from diplomats of the world’s top economies to representatives of tiny island nations making a debut appearance before the UN’s top court.

In what many experts have painted as a “David Vs Goliath” scrap, stark divisions have emerged between top polluters and those suffering most from climate change.

Major powers such as the United States, China, and India have warned the judges not to go beyond the existing legal framework for combating climate change.

But smaller states argue this blueprint, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is insufficient to mitigate the devastating effects of the changing climate.

Representing a group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states, Cristelle Pratt told AFP there was “huge disappointment” at developed countries but that it was “quite unsurprising.”

“We cannot just rely on the climate treaties to address this global crisis,” said Pratt, from the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States.

“We need to look to the full body of international law. And we do need to do this because of equity and justice. Every human being on this planet has a right to live a worthwhile life,” she added.

‘Reverberate across the world’

The 15-judge ICJ panel has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion to answer two questions.

Firstly, what legal obligations do nations have to prevent climate change? Secondly, what are the legal consequences for countries whose emissions have harmed the environment, especially that of developing states?

This second question is where many vulnerable countries hope the ICJ will clarify a legal requirement for historic emitters to stump up for the damage caused.

“We do need to look at historical responsibilities and hold those emitters, mainly colonial powers, to account,” said Pratt.

“That certainly is something that we from the global south will be hoping to hear,” she added, mentioning that many of her member countries were servicing “unsustainable debt.”

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is non-binding and will take many months to emerge.

Nikki Reisch, Director of the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling would “reverberate across the world.”

“This is the world’s highest court and their opinion will carry weight…. there is an opportunity for this court to break through the impunity that we’ve seen for decades and to affirm the basis for accountability,” she told AFP.

“It’s not just about paying compensation for the mounting cost of climate change. It’s about structural reforms, debt cancellation, ecosystem restoration,” she added.

‘Life and death’

The countries Pratt represents have a population of 1.3 billion but produce three percent of global emissions, she noted.

After bitterly fought COP29 climate talks, wealthy polluters agreed to find at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help poorer countries’ transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather.

“The pledges are really quite insignificant,” said Pratt.

Several top polluters have argued it is impossible to enshrine into international law a responsibility for past emissions and the damage caused.

“We’ve seen time and again here in these halls that the fossil fuel giants… have urged this court to ignore history, to sweep their historical conduct, the decades of conduct that has brought the world to the brink, under the rug,” said Reisch.

The hearings have also been notable for representatives of tiny island states, often in colourful national dress, recounting searing stories of the devastation suffered by their people.

“These hearings have put into stark relief that this is a matter of life and death for so many people,” Reisch told AFP.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

India slammed developed countries for causing the climate crisis during a landmark hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, saying they exploited the global carbon budget, failed to honour climate-finance promises and are now demanding that developing countries restrict their resource use.

The court is examining what legal obligations countries have to address climate change and the consequences if they fail.

Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said, “If the contribution to degradation is unequal, the responsibility must also be unequal.”

India said developing nations are the hardest hit by climate change, despite contributing the least to it.

“The developed world, which historically contributed the most, is ironically the best equipped with the technological and economic means to address this challenge,” Rangreji said.

He criticised rich countries for enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels while discouraging developing nations from using their own energy resources.

“Countries which have reaped development benefits from exploiting fossil fuels demand developing countries to not utilise the national energy resources available to them,” he said.

India also slammed the lack of action on climate-finance commitments.

“The USD 100 billion pledged at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 by developed country parties and the doubling of the contribution to the Adaptation Fund have not yet been translated into any concrete actions,” India noted.

It called the new climate finance package for the Global South agreed at COP29 in Azerbaijan’s Baku “too little, too distant” to meet the urgent needs of developing countries.

India stressed the principle of fairness, saying, “If the contribution to global environmental degradation is unequal, the responsibility should also be unequal.”

India also reaffirmed its commitment to its climate targets under the Paris Agreement, but warned against overburdening its citizens.

“There is a limit on how much we burden our citizens, even when India is pursuing Sustainable Development Goals for one-sixth of humanity,” it said.

The hearing is the result of years of campaigning by Pacific island nations and Vanuatu, which led to a UN resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion. Over the next two weeks, 98 countries, including small island nations and large emitters, will present their views.

Though non-binding, the ICJ’s opinion could set a moral and legal benchmark in the global fight against climate change.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

India slammed developed countries for causing the climate crisis during a landmark hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, saying they exploited the global carbon budget, failed to honour climate-finance promises and are now demanding that developing countries restrict their resource use.

The court is examining what legal obligations countries have to address climate change and the consequences if they fail.

Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said, “If the contribution to degradation is unequal, the responsibility must also be unequal.”

India said developing nations are the hardest hit by climate change, despite contributing the least to it.

“The developed world, which historically contributed the most, is ironically the best equipped with the technological and economic means to address this challenge,” Rangreji said.

He criticised rich countries for enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels while discouraging developing nations from using their own energy resources.

“Countries which have reaped development benefits from exploiting fossil fuels demand developing countries to not utilise the national energy resources available to them,” he said.

India also slammed the lack of action on climate-finance commitments.

“The USD 100 billion pledged at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 by developed country parties and the doubling of the contribution to the Adaptation Fund have not yet been translated into any concrete actions,” India noted.

It called the new climate finance package for the Global South agreed at COP29 in Azerbaijan’s Baku “too little, too distant” to meet the urgent needs of developing countries.

India stressed the principle of fairness, saying, “If the contribution to global environmental degradation is unequal, the responsibility should also be unequal.”

India also reaffirmed its commitment to its climate targets under the Paris Agreement, but warned against overburdening its citizens.

“There is a limit on how much we burden our citizens, even when India is pursuing Sustainable Development Goals for one-sixth of humanity,” it said.

The hearing is the result of years of campaigning by Pacific island nations and Vanuatu, which led to a UN resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion. Over the next two weeks, 98 countries, including small island nations and large emitters, will present their views.

Though non-binding, the ICJ’s opinion could set a moral and legal benchmark in the global fight against climate change.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Hague:

The United Nations’ top court next week begins hearings on the legal obligation of countries to fight climate change and the consequences for states of contributing to global warming, the outcome of which could influence litigation worldwide.

While the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) are non-binding, they are legally and politically significant. Experts say the ICJ’s eventual opinion on climate change will likely be cited in climate change-driven lawsuits in courts from Europe to Latin America and beyond.

The hearings begin a week after developing nations denounced as woefully inadequate an agreement reached at the COP29 summit for countries to provide $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035 to help poorer nations cope with climate change.

Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and the environment, said it was imperative fossil fuels be phased out and more money provided to poorer nations bearing the brunt of climate change, such as his Pacific island nation.

“We’re not seeing that in the outcome of the COPs,” Regenvanu told Reuters.

“We are hoping (the ICJ) can provide a new avenue to break through the inertia we experience when trying to talk about climate justice,” he added.

Fiji’s Attorney General Graham Leung called the hearings an historic opportunity for small island developing states in their quest for climate change justice.

CLIMATE LITIGATION

Climate litigation is on the rise.

Earlier this year, Europe’s top human rights court ruled that the Swiss government had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change. But it also rejected two other cases, pointing to the complexities of the growing wave of climate litigation.

Vanuatu, one of the small developing nations that pushed for an ICJ advisory opinion, says it disproportionately suffers the effects of climate change as a result of increasingly intense storms and rising sea levels.

Vanuatu will be the first of 98 countries and twelve international organisations to present arguments to the ICJ, also known as the World Court. It is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving international disputes between states and can be tasked by the U.N. General Assembly to give advisory opinions.

In 2023, the assembly asked it for a formal opinion on questions including the legal obligations of states to protect the climate system and whether large states that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions may be liable for damages, in particular to small island nations.

“As COP29 failed to provide a clear direction for climate justice and ambition, any developments from the ICJ will now only become more weighty,” said Lea Main-Klingst, a lawyer with ClientEarth.

Aside from small island states and numerous Western and developing countries, the court will also hear from the world’s top two emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China. Oil producer group OPEC will also give its views.

The hearings will start at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) local time on Monday and run until Dec. 13. The court’s opinion will be delivered in 2025.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Hague:

South Africa on Friday sought new emergency measures by the International Court of Justice against Israel over its latest offensive against the Gaza city of Rafah, the court said in a statement.

It is the third time since making a first application in December that South Africa has requested extra action against Israel over the Gaza war.

Israel has condemned South Africa’s allegations that it has launched a “genocide” against the Palestinian territory.

South Africa’s application said Israel’s operation against Rafah poses an “extreme risk” to “humanitarian supplies and basic services into Gaza, to the survival of the Palestinian medical system, and to the very survival of Palestinians in Gaza as a group,” the UN court said in a statement.

The application accused Israel of “continuing violations of the Genocide Convention”.

South Africa said Israel has been “contemptuous” of international law and calls on the court to order Israel to “immediately withdraw and cease its military offensive” in Rafah.

It also demanded an order that Israel give “unimpeded access” to Gaza to the United Nations and other groups providing humanitarian aid.

Israel launched its war against Hamas after the Palestinian militants staged their unprecedented October 7 attacks across the border resulting in the deaths of more than 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.

Militants also seized hostages, of whom Israel estimates 128 remain in Gaza, including 36 who the military says are dead.

Israel’s blistering retaliatory offensive has left almost 35,000 dead, mainly women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the Rafah offensive was needed to complete the rout of Hamas.

Rafah is crammed with hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians living in dire conditions and there have been warnings that an Israeli ground offensive would trigger a humanitarian catastrophe for civilians.

In January the ICJ called on Israel to prevent acts of genocide following the original South African request for international action.

The court rejected a second South African application for emergency measures over Israel’s threat to attack Rafah. South Africa made a new request in early March.

The UN court settles disputes between states. Its orders are binding but there is no enforcement mechanism. The court has already ordered Russia to halt its war against Ukraine. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)