CLIMATE CHANGES AND COUNTRIES - ENVIRONMENT

CLIMATE CHANGES AND COUNTRIES - ENVIRONMENT

News: Explained | Can countries be sued over climate change?

What's in the news?

●       United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that asked the International Court of Justice at The Hague to provide an opinion on what kind of obligations countries have towards climate change reduction, based on the promises they have made to the U.N. Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Key takeaways:

●       This resolution is particularly important as it was passed by consensus and was initiated by Vanuatu, one of the smallest countries in the world located in the Pacific Island region.

●       Vanuatu was devastated by the effects of Cyclone Pam in 2015, which was believed to have been spurred by climate change that wiped out 95% of its crops and affected two-thirds of its population.

Features of the resolution:

●       The draft resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly (A/77/L.58) has requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an opinion on two questions related to climate change obligations under international law such as

○       What are the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system for present and future generations?

○       What are the legal consequences under these obligations for states where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and for people who are harmed?

●       The resolution cites various international agreements, including the Paris Agreement (2015), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

●       The ICJ is expected to take about 18 months to deliberate and deliver its opinion on the matter.

Issues of non-binding:

●       The “advisory opinion” of ICJ would not be legally binding as an ICJ judgment.

●       However, ICJ’s clarification of international environmental laws would streamline the process, particularly as the COP (Conference of the Parties) process looks at various issues like climate finance, climate justice, and the most recently agreed to “loss and damages” fund at the COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh last year.

Importance of the resolution:

1. Speed up climate action:

●       Frustration with the procedures of global climate agencies, particularly the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), stems from their deliberations often ending in compromises that delay climate action.

2. ICJ’s decision carries moral weight:

●       The Hague-based court’s opinion will not be binding but carries moral weight, potentially setting the stage for countries to incorporate climate justice in their legal frameworks.

India’s stance:

1. Silent on resolution:

●       India has been silent on the resolution and has referred the resolution to legal authorities in the country to assess its implications and international ramifications.

2. Did not co-sponsor:

●       Although India has updated its commitments towards reducing emissions, it did not co-sponsor the draft resolution, unlike several other countries like Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and a number of island countries in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) in the region.

3. Wait and watch approach:

●       India is watching the response of global powers such as the U.S. and China, as their support is crucial for the implementation of any climate change initiative.

●       During the resolution discussion, the U.S. representative expressed concerns about the effectiveness of a judicial process in achieving shared goals and emphasized diplomatic efforts as the best approach.

●       Indian officials have also stated that the ICJ process cannot name or specifically mention any one country and can only speak about issues and challenges related to climate change in general.

●       They cited the Paris agreement as a turning point in the direction of a "bottom-up" strategy in which governments decide for themselves how best to combat climate change.

Significance of the move:

1. Bolster efforts by global nations under UNFCCC:

●       A legal opinion from the ICJ is expected to bolster the efforts under the UNFCCC to ensure all countries work towards mitigating climate change and global warming to the suggested 1.5-2°C limit.

●       ICJ’s legal opinion will be watched closely on contentious issues such as climate reparations by the developed world, legal culpability for countries that don’t achieve their NDC promises and climate support to the most vulnerable parts of the world battling the effects of global warming.

●       Global climate levels have already risen by 1.1 degrees from pre-industrial levels in the last century, according to the most recent IPCC "Synthesis report," and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as much as by half, are needed by 2030 to maintain this target.

2. Guide from UN:

●       According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the view of the ICJ is "important," and it will "guide the activities and conduct of states in their interactions with each other, as well as towards their own citizens."

●       The UNGA path taken by Vanuatu and its supporters is more comprehensive than two other attempts for an Advisory Opinion sought in December 2022 by the Small Island States to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea specifically asking about marine environment commitments, and in January 2023 by Colombia and Chile at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) asking for an Advisory Opinion on human rights obligations for countries pertaining to the “climate emergency”.

Challenges in holding countries accountable:

1. Holding individuals accountable:

●       Holding individual countries or governments accountable for their climate inaction has been a major stumbling block at several climate meets.

2. Compensation issue:

●       The Paris Agreement contains a clause specifying that the pact does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation, inserted under pressure from US diplomats.

3. Adamant stance:

●       American support for the UNGA resolution was reportedly reluctant, indicating that powerful countries might resist being held accountable for their climate inaction.

Go back to basics:

Previous attempts to address climate change in non-environmental forums:

1. Global warming on agenda:

●       Global warming has been part of the UN Security Council’s agenda since 2007, with the UNSC attempting to frame the issue from a security standpoint, rather than solely from developmental or environmental perspectives.

2. Securitization of climate change:

●       Developing countries, including India and China, have rightly resisted the securitization of climate change, arguing that it could lead to the imposition of sanctions and other coercive measures.

3. Rights and justice:

●       The use of rights and justice vocabulary has given the Vanuatu-sponsored proposal more traction and global support.

The UNGA’s intervention should not detract from the task of reforming the UNFCCC. Institutions of the umbrella climate agency need to be more equity-sensitive and justice-oriented. Engaging with the ICJ could push it in that direction, but wealthier members of the UNFCCC must show more initiative. The growing demand for climate justice and the increasing number of climate litigation cases highlight the importance of addressing the issue in a just and equitable manner.