Cynthia Houniuhi, the head of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Credit: IPS
By Cecilia Russell
THE HAGUE & JOHANNESBURG, Dec 2 2024 – A few UN member states responsible for the majority of emissions have breached international law, Ralph Regenvanu, a special climate envoy from Vanuatu, told the International Court of Justice in the Hague in his opening address.
He was the first person to address the court action started by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and supported by the government of Vanautu. In 2023, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” The opinion requested is wide-ranging, going beyond the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreements.
Setting the scene for the 10-day hearings, Regenvanu said his nation of islands and people had built vibrant cultures over millennia “that are intimately intertwined with our ancestral lands and seas. Yet today, we find ourselves on the front lines of a crisis we did not create.”
Arnold Kiel Loughman, Attorney General of Vanuatu, said it was for the ICJ to uphold international law and hold states accountable for their actions.
“How can the conduct that has taken humanity to the brink of catastrophe, threatening the survival of entire peoples, be lawful and without consequences?” Loughman asked. “We urge the Court to affirm in the clearest terms that this contact is in preach of the obligations of states and international law, and that such preach carries little consequences.”
Cynthia Houniuhi, the head of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which had initiated the action, said climate change was undermining “the sacred contract” between generations.
“Without our land, our bodies and memories are severed from the fundamental relationships that define who we are. Those who stand to lose are the future generations. Their future is uncertain, reliant upon the decision-making of a handful of large emitting states.”
Throughout the day, countries impacted by climate change told the ICJ that climate change agreements did not preclude other aspects of international law. During it’s first day of hearings, the court heard from Vanuatu and Melanesian Spearhead Group, South Africa, Albania, Germany, Antigua and Barbuda, Saudi Arabia, Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh and Barbados.
At the end of the day, Barbados gave graphic examples of how climate change affects the country and asked the court to consider robust obligations on states to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions.
“Climate change is not some unstoppable force that individual states have no control over. We must cut through the noise and accept that those whose activities have led to the current state of global affairs must offer a response that is commensurate with the destruction that has been caused. There is no parity, there is no fairness, there is no equity,” Bahamas attorney general Ryan Pinder told the court.
Showing a photograph of piles of what looked like refuse, Pinder recalled the impact of Hurricane Dorian.
“You can easily mistake this photograph for a pile of rubbish. However, what you are looking at are lost homes and lost livelihoods. A 20-foot storm surge rushed through the streets of these islands, contributing to approximately 3 billion US dollars in economic damage. That’s about 25 percent of our annual GDP in just two days. The results of such a storm are real. They include displaced people, learning loss, livelihoods, and lost and missing loved ones, all because some countries have ignored the warning signs of the climate crisis.”
The Bahamas’ demands were clear and irrevocable.
“It is time for these polluters to pay. The IPCC has been telling us for years that the only way to stop a warming planet is to make deep, rapid and sustained cuts in the global greenhouse gas emissions. The world needs to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which requires a cut in the GHG emissions by at least 43 percent in the next five years. Industrial states need to take urgent action now and provide reparations for their decades of neglect.”
Saudi Arabia had earlier in the proceedings argued that the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement set state obligations to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. They argued that giving future generations legal status was dangerous and that obligations that were inconsistent with or exceeded those agreed in the specialized climate-related treaty regime would undermine the ongoing and future progress in international efforts to protect the climate system.
However, Pinder told the court that climate agreements do not exist in isolation.
“The climate treaties refer to both human rights and the prevention obligation. They did not erase existing public international law, and those who claim otherwise provide no credible support for their proposition. The court should resist such harmful attempts to dilute and distort international law.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
