UN court hears urgent climate change threat and now we wait for a verdict

In the Hague, Netherlands, historic hearings on the threat of climate change concluded after two weeks, addressing what countries are legally obliged to do under international law. The International Court of Justice, responding to a request from the United Nations General Assembly, has considered the plight of vulnerable nations like Tuvalu, which are threatened by rising sea levels due to climate change. During the hearings, 96 countries and 11 international organizations participated, discussing the responsibilities of nations in combating climate change and the legal consequences of inaction. Tuvalu's representative, Phillipa Webb, emphasized that the country would not succumb quietly to the ravages of climate change, highlighting the urgent need for clear legal obligations to protect such vulnerable nations. The court is addressing key questions about countries’ legal responsibilities regarding human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and the consequences for failing to act. The diverse representation at the hearings included many nations that previously had not engaged with the court, indicating a growing global consensus on the critical nature of this issue. Despite the significance of these proceedings, any opinion issued by the court will be non-binding, meaning it cannot enforce actions on nations. However, experts like Nikki Reisch argue that the court's ruling could lead to more substantial actions, as it would provide an authoritative interpretation of international law that could underpin domestic lawsuits and other legal efforts. Activists may utilize the court's advice to pressure their governments to take more robust action against climate change. The proceedings come at a time when major greenhouse gas emitters, including the United States, stress the importance of adhering to the Paris Agreement. While 1990 to 2020 saw sea levels rise globally by an average of 10 centimeters, parts of the South Pacific experienced an even more considerable increase, underscoring the need for action. The court is expected to review both oral and written submissions until the end of the year, and a decision, although likely not anticipated until late 2025, could have profound implications for international climate policy.