UN States Must Support Equitable Recommendations for International Climate Change Opinion

As UN member states submit recommendations for the ICJ’s upcoming global opinion on climate change, climate justice organisations call on countries to prioritise equity in their submissions.

August 15 marks the deadline for 91 United Nations member states to submit critical comments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its deliberations over the obligations of countries to address climate change. 

As nations submit written feedback on peer countries’ legal positions on the question of state legal obligations and consequences regarding climate change, Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the youth led organisation that began this campaign, is prioritising four critical considerations these nations must take into account in proceedings before the world’s highest court.

  1. Climate Science: Scientific and state consensus is that climate change is a human-made crisis largely brought on by the burning of fossil fuels and rampant changes to how land has been used over time. The impacts of climate change have materialised substantially over time and will worsen—with the most effects being felt by Small Island Developing States (SIDS) facing sea level rise, extreme weather, and economic and non-economic loss and damage. Attribution Science—the linking of  critical changes in our climate to extreme weather events—is a valid, sustainable, and scalable method of measuring the impacts of climate change on our environment. 

  2. Respect for the Law: There are multiple laws—from state laws to international human rights laws, international environment laws and laws of the sea—mandating that nations act in response to climate emergencies, mitigate their impacts, and immediately identify and address foreseeable climate crises. The Paris Agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are not—and should not be—the sole arbiters of how climate change is addressed. The obligations of nations to effectively address the impacts of climate change go well beyond those two frameworks and require nations to meet a significant duty of care in mitigating the global climate crisis. 

  3. Due Diligence: Nations have a moral and international mandate to conduct due diligence to assess the risks of climate change within their own borders and mitigate those risks to the best of their ability—including minimising the increase of global warming and decreasing national reliance on fossil fuels. It is in fact a violation of human rights to increase fossil fuel production knowing that an eventual outcome will be the deprivation of life, liberty, security, privacy, family life, movement, property, adequate living standards, cultural life, and the right to self-determination, particularly for communities located in the Global South and Indigenous communities. 

  4. Responsibility: Nations must acknowledge their historical responsibilities in addressing the impacts of rampant greenhouse gas emissions. Legal responsibilities include the immediate cessation of harmful activities and responding to the harms and damages inflicted upon communities as a result of these activities. Individuals and communities harmed by state-sanctioned violations of international climate law have a right to seek justice for having their human rights violated and for both economic and non-economic loss and damage experienced by greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful climate activities.

    No other ICJ proceeding in history has had this number of written submissions, demonstrating the primacy of the advisory opinion and its impact on global climate politics. 

“Right now, the world is grappling with an escalating climate emergency, and the urgency for global unity in combating climate change has never been greater. This is the biggest climate case to date and the submissions made to the ICJ advisory opinion proceedings represent a crucial moment for nations to unite and champion bold, transformative legal arguments. States must not forget that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis and that submissions to the Court must be approached with this fundamental principle at its core. For climate vulnerable countries like mine, time is running out and it is our hope that countries will rise to the occasion, align with the cause of climate justice and seize this moment to make a historic stand at the ICJ,” said Vishal Prasad, Campaign Director for PISFCC, a critical global advocate for the ICJ opinion. 

“For us in the Pacific, the realities really reflect the toll of climate change. People I spoke to through our work are living in fear for their future and as well as their children’s future. Would they be forced to move from their homes if the saltwater keeps coming in? Where will they go? This is precisely why we are turning to the ICJ to not only summarise the state's existing obligations, but truly deliver for the people a pathway for rapid global progress towards intergenerational equity and climate justice,” said Cynthia Houniuhi, President of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.

Oral hearings are expected later this year and the final advisory opinion to be delivered in 2025. 

-Ends-

Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change is a youth-led organisation whose members are students from Pacific Island countries, specifically Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu. Its membership uses its passion and knowledge to fight against climate change at every level—from the grassroots of our communities to the highest levels of national and international government. Its core campaign is to seek climate justice at the International Court of Justice by requesting the court to respond to a legal question that will develop international law, integrate legal obligations around environmental treaties and basic human rights, and clarify state responsibility for climate harm.
Previous
Previous

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Receives 62 Written Comments for The Climate Advisory Opinion Proceedings

Next
Next

Kiss Your "Good Faith" Efforts Goodbye: Courts Get Tough on Climate Action