UN court ends historic climate hearings, verdict awaits

In the Hague, Netherlands, significant hearings addressing climate change threats have recently concluded at the International Court of Justice. The court heard from representatives of various countries, including Tuvalu and Vanuatu, amid urgent calls for clarity regarding legal obligations to combat climate change. The hearings, which took place over two weeks, were historic, drawing in participation from 96 countries and 11 international organizations, many of whom had not previously been involved in such proceedings. Tuvalu’s legal counsel, Phillipa Webb, explicitly focused the attention of the court on the existential risk posed to small island nations due to rising sea levels. The case before the court emerged as a response to a resolution from the United Nations General Assembly, which sought an advisory opinion on the obligations of countries under international law regarding climate change. Climate policy expert Nikki Reisch underscored that the court may not directly force nations to act but that an authoritative interpretation of international law could inspire legal actions against governments failing to mitigate climate change. Participants at the hearings included various nations who argued that the existing frameworks, like the Paris Agreement, do not sufficiently safeguard their interests against climate threats. Activists involved in the proceedings believed that a ruling from the court could inform future lawsuits for domestic accountability relating to climate actions and obligations. Even though major emitters such as the United States suggested adhering to the Paris Agreement, many participants rejected this notion, arguing that it is not adequate to meet the pressing needs of vulnerable nations facing climate impacts. The next stage involves the court's panel of fifteen judges reviewing all the submissions made during the hearings. They are expected to pose additional questions to participants, who will need to respond by the end of the year. Historically, the court takes about six months to issue a decision, so opinions may not be anticipated until late 2025. Regardless of the court's ruling, this case is seen as a significant development in raising legal standards concerning global responsibilities for climate change.