The country of Vanuatu is made up of 83 islands arranged in a hairy “Y” shape in the South Pacific Ocean. Some of the islands are uninhabited. Some have beautiful white sand beaches, while others have active volcanoes. Vanuatu has a smaller population than Wichita. Its economy is smaller than that of Vermont, and its military consists of 300 volunteers. But diplomatically speaking, it punches above its weight.
Thanks to Vanuatu’s maneuver, virtually the entire developed world was put on trial in The Hague this month. The case, before the 15-member International Court of Justice, concerns climate change. Do countries have legal and moral obligations to prevent global disasters? And what are the consequences of violating those obligations? About 90 countries filed a letter in this case. submitted testimony, and an equal number of countries sent representatives to the Netherlands for oral arguments. The case has been called “groundbreaking,” “historic,” “momentous” and “watershed.”
Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and the environment, Ralph Regenvanu, told the court: “I am choosing my words carefully as this may be the most significant event in human history.” “Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the causes of their destruction were tolerated.”
The United States has a fractious relationship with the United Nations’ judicial arm, the ICJ (often referred to as the World Court). The United States is actively participating in court proceedings, but reserves the right to veto decisions it does not like. (The ICJ, which hears civil cases, is different from the International Criminal Court, also located in The Hague, but the United States does not participate in this court.)
The United States has much at stake when it comes to climate change. Although the minutes do not actually name any countries, it is clear that the United States, historically the world’s largest emitter, is the primary target. Next in order are China, European Union countries, Russia, Brazil, and Indonesia. “A small number of easily identified states are causing the bulk of the problem,” Regenbanu said. “But other countries, including our own, are also bearing the brunt of the impact.”
In The Hague, the United States argued that the case was not actually necessary. The world already has a mechanism to address climate change: a traveling roadshow of international negotiations. “The United States encourages the court to ensure that its opinions preserve and advance the centrality of this system,” State Department general counsel Margaret Taylor told the justices. In a rare show of solidarity, China made much the same claim. The same was true for Saudi Arabia. “The specialized treaty regime on climate change provides a complete answer to the question,” Saudi representative Prince Jarrawi Al Saud told the court.
Everyone in the boardroom, including perhaps the Americans, Chinese, and Saudis, could see the flaws in this argument. The “regime” to which Taylor alluded began with the so-called Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The summit resulted in a global agreement to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” but the treaty remained vague on both points. The meaning of this word and the mechanism to realize it. After more than two decades of debate, world leaders agreed in 2015 to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). There is widespread agreement that this threshold will soon be breached. On the other hand, global CO2 emissions continue to increase. It is expected to reach a new high in 2024. Emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are also increasing. At this point, only by taking action at an unprecedented pace and scale can we prevent global temperatures from rising by a dire 2 degrees Celsius. Under current policies, temperature increases could well exceed 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the year. century.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared in mid-November, just before the final round of negotiations began, that “time is running out.” The meeting was held in Azerbaijan, where oil and gas sales account for two-thirds of the government’s budget and were generally seen as a bust. In the words of one commentator, “evaluation must be between failure and disaster.” With the victory of Donald Trump, who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and (again) withdraw the US from the negotiation process, progress is unlikely over the next four years.
Vanuatu has now brought this case to the World Court because this “system” has proven to be so woefully – indeed, world-historically – inadequate. James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in testimony in The Hague: turn around. ”
The ICJ judgment is only a recommendation. Nevertheless, the court’s opinion, expected early next year, could be, as Nature magazine puts it, a “game changer.” More than 2,000 climate change lawsuits have already been filed around the world. (Most of these have been filed in U.S. courts, but hundreds have also been filed in other countries.) A strongly worded ruling could lead to more lawsuits. Like other international tribunals, courts around the world look to the ICJ’s decisions for guidance. “The ICJ proceedings could prove that addressing climate change is not just a matter of political will or voluntary commitments, but a binding legal responsibility,” the International Union for Conservation of Nature said. Executive Director Gretel Aguilar testified. Haag said.
However, for Vanuatu, even though the ruling is seen as a victory, it is not actually a victory. The country is considered one of the world’s most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, but rising sea levels have forced the relocation of six villages, with the government warning that they may soon need to be relocated. Dozens of other villages have been identified. Further losses are already inevitable. “Population migration due to climate change is a key feature of our future,” Regenbanu said. “That’s the reality.” ♦
