Khumbu Glacier at the Mt. Everest base camp. Because of rising temperatures, glaciers are melting at a faster rate. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS
By Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Dec 10 2024 – At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), no matter if the country had high Himalayas, was a small island nation or was experiencing armed conflict, they all agreed that the due diligence principle and the obligation of states to prevent harm caused by climate change, especially for high greenhouse gas emitters, were non-negotiable.
On Monday, December 9, 2024, countries including Nepal, Pakistan, Nauru, New Zealand and the State of Palestine presented their cases before the highest court within the United Nations.
Countries within the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region, Nepal and Pakistan, included examples of recent years disasters, including flash floods and their impact on livelihoods, while the small island state of Nauru laid out the toll faced by its people because of rising sea level. The State of Palestine connected its plea to ongoing armed conflict and climate-environmental destruction.
At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states who have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states. So far, more than 70 countries have presented their case before the court.
Indigenous Sherpa women in the Khumbu region of Nepal. These mountain communities are already facing the impact of climate change in the form of low snowfall and glacier melting, which causes floods. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS
Human Rights and Technology Transfer—Nepal
Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arzu Rana Deuba, stressed climate change-induced disasters were hindering the human rights of people on the front lines and said countries responsible for emissions needed to fulfil their obligations.
“Climate change hinders the realization and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life, right to food, right to health, right to adequate housing, sanitation and water,” Deuba said. “Moreover, it impacts the rights of women, children and people with disabilities, as well as the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous communities.”
Nepal says many vulnerable states were not able to meet the obligations under international human rights laws, as the actions and emissions arising from beyond their territory also had adverse effects on the human rights of their citizens. The country of mountains, including Mt. Everest, stressed the need for material, technical and financial support from the countries whose historic emissions have caused the crisis of anthropogenic climate change.
“This includes unhindered access to technology and the sharing of meteorological and glacial data,” Deuba said. “Nepal considers that the court’s advisory opinion will contribute to clarifying the law, especially the obligations of the states regarding climate change and the rules governing the consequences of the violation of these obligations.”
Suvanga Parajuli, Under Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, added that the country was facing a gross injustice. “What countries like Nepal are calling for is not mere handouts of charity but compensation for real climate justice,” Parajuli said.
Court Opinion Could Help Avert Catastrophe—Pakistan
Another HKH region country, Pakistan, which faced devastating floods caused by climate change in 2022, stressed the need for support and knowledge sharing. Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan, urged the court to give an opinion that clarifies the legal obligations of states to prevent, avoid, reduce, or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
“If lives and livelihoods are to be protected, if we want to avoid utter catastrophe, there simply is no time to lose. As has often been said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and undoubtedly, we are the last generation that can do something about it.”
Awan continued, “For the human race, ignoring the climate emergency is no longer an option.”
We Are Facing Existential Threat—Nauru
Island country Nauru argues that climate change poses an existential threat to its security and well-being, highlighting the impact of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and drought at the UN court.
The island is a mere 21 km2 (8.1 sq mi), oval-shaped island in the southwestern Pacific Ocean.
Representing Nauru Lionel Rouwen Aingimea, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, emphasized the obligations of states in respect of climate change to be the obligations found in the principles of general international law.
“We urge this court to clarify the scope of the existing obligations of states with respect to climate change,” Aingimea said. “No more, but certainly no less, we seek your affirmation that the law protects the vulnerable and that our fundamental rights under general international law—to exist, to thrive, to safeguard our land—are upheld and respected.”
He urged the court to deliver an advisory opinion that reflects “the urgency, the dignity and the right of all peoples to exist in security.”
Island countries’ vulnerability was central to New Zealand’s arguments. Representing Pacific Island countries, Victoria Hallum, Deputy Secretary Multilateral and Legal Affairs Group at New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs and Trade ministry, emphasized the urgent need to address anthropogenic climate change. It said climate change was the single greatest threat to the Pacific Island regions.
Armed Conflict and Climate Change Connected—Palestine
The State of Palestine highlighted the intersection of climate change and international law, particularly the impacts of armed conflict and military activities.
Palestine positioned itself as a key contributor to the proceedings and referred to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on nuclear weapons to support its argument on the relationship between environmental protection and international law in armed conflict.
At the ICJ hearing, Ammar Hijazi, Ambassador of Palestine to International Organizations in The Hague, linked the relationship between climate change and emissions during armed conflict.
“The State of Palestine is responsible for less than 0.001% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Palestine now grapples with unprecedented severe climate events, mainly due to Israel’s occupation and policies and practices,” Hijazi said. “Israel’s occupation curtails our ability to support climate policy. As a party to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, Palestine is taking action to reduce 17.5 percent of its GHG by 2040, when our goal could be 26.6 percent if Israel’s occupation ends.”
Palestine argued that the court should not miss the opportunity to address the relation, obligation and rights of the people in the context of armed conflict and climate change in the historic opinion it will issue at the conclusion of these advisory proceedings. “This will fulfill the promise not to leave anyone behind and ensure that law applies to all,” Hijazi said.
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’);
