Latest news with #KyotoProtocol
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Is ICJ's ruling on climate change merely symbolic?
In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23, 2025, announced countries and territories are obligated to combat climate change through efforts to the best of their capabilities. Climate change poses an 'urgent and existential threat,' the court said. It held that climate action is not based on any one law but is rather a mix of international law provisions like the UN charter, and international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Paris Agreement, among others, and that they should influence the actions that member states take to protect the environment. The Court also ruled that countries bear the responsibility of protecting the earth's climate systems, reduce emissions and limit global warming. Several countries have hailed the Court's decision, saying that it adds heft to humanity's fight against climate change. The ruling hits all the right notes -- it places human rights at the forefront of the fight against global warming. But, is it merely symbolic, given it is an advisory opinion and not enforceable? Guest: Dr. Vaibhav Chaturvedi, The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) Host: Nivedita V Edited by Sharmada venkatasubramanian Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
The Sun
a day ago
- Entertainment
- The Sun
JEMY 2025 draw over 20,000 visitors
THE nation's largest all-Japan event, 'Japan Expo Malaysia 2025' (JEMY 2025), held on July 18-20 at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (KLCC), drew more than 20,000 visitors. Officiated by the Ambassador of Japan to Malaysia Noriyuki Shikata, the event, now in its sixth year, 'reaffirmed its role as a dynamic platform for Malaysia-Japan economic and cultural exchange, spanning trade, tourism, education and the creative industries'. Shikata said this year's expo once again demonstrated the strength of the countries' bilateral ties, while providing a unique blend of cultural and commercial experience for visitors from all walks of life. 'From business to tradition, the event truly captured the spirit of Japan-Malaysia collaboration,' he said during the his opening address at the event. The grand opening ceremony on 18 July was marked by a vibrant showcase, setting the tone for an immersive weekend. The audience was treated to high-energy performances by comedy trio 'wannabees', a mesmerising face-changing act by Enishi and the captivating rhythms of the Awa Odori dance troupe from Japan's Tokushima Prefecture. A major highlight of the ceremony was the inaugural Japan Expo Malaysia Awards, which honoured individuals and organisations for their impactful contributions to strengthening Japan-Malaysia relations. Among the recipients were Kyoto Protocol and Rine-Hime in the Entertainment category, Melinda Looi for Fashion and Ying Tze as Cosplayer of the Year, along with many others. Throughout the weekend, visitors were immersed in an exciting line-up of cultural and culinary experiences. Spanning two dedicated zones – Exhibition and Entertainment Zone, JEMY 2025 featured a diverse mix of experiences. In the Exhibition Zone, Chef Nao Kawasaki's dramatic Tuna Cutting Show drew a packed audience, offering a rare and captivating glimpse into the artistry of traditional Japanese seafood and sushi preparation. Opera vocalist Saori Suzuki delivered a powerful live performance, blending classical training with contemporary expression. Meanwhile, acclaimed illustrator Mitsume Takahashi mesmerised art lovers with a series of Digital Live Painting sessions, showcasing his distinctive style in real time. Other popular attractions included Sushi Moments, where top local chefs presented exquisite culinary creations, the Omakase Talk and Presentation and an engaging Sake Workshop, alongside interactive booths and hands-on workshops. One lucky visitor also won a round-trip air ticket and a four-day/three-night stay in Japan, adding extra excitement to the festivities. In the Entertainment Zone, the stage featured an electrifying mix of Japanese and Malaysian acts including a former Hello! Project idol Manaka Inaba and acclaimed J-Pop soloist Leon Niihama, best known for performing the latest Detective Conan ending theme 'Fun! Fun! Fun!', as well as Kyoto Protocol, KLP48, Rine-Hime, Taka Kazuki and Friends, Jei, Nico, DJ Blink, DJ Harimao, and Harimeow. From traditional Awa Odori performances, Kendo demonstrations to cosplay pop, the line-up celebrated the dynamic synergy between the two cultures. The event also introduced the Malaysia Startup League, a competitive platform for 20 innovative local startups to showcase their ideas in collaboration with Deloitte Japan, competing for a RM5,000 prize pool. Academic collaboration was also in focus, with the University of Tsukuba presenting global education opportunities and research initiatives. The ESG Talk Series, a key feature of this year's programme, brought together thought leaders and change makers from Japan and Malaysia to discuss sustainability, green innovation and corporate responsibility. A particularly meaningful moment was the Live Painting and Silent Auction of 'The Crane of Internal Spring', an original piece created during the expo. Proceeds from the auction were pledged to an orphanage supporting underprivileged children, reinforcing the expo's spirit of community and inclusivity. 'The success of this year's edition reflects our mission to create a vibrant platform for cross cultural celebration and industry advancement,' said Siam Connection Sdn Bhd managing director Wong Wai Jo. 'We are proud to see how Japan Expo Malaysia continues to grow and inspire new partnerships and connections every year.' JEMY 2025 is organised by Siam Connection and G-Yu Creative Co Ltd, co-sponsored by Nissan and Oyoshi with the support of the Embassy of Japan in Malaysia, the Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO), Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), the Japan Foundation Kuala Lumpur (JFKL), Tourism Malaysia (Visit Malaysia 2026) and the Malaysia Convention & Exhibition Bureau (MyCEB).
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
What did the ICJ opinion state on climate obligations?
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of countries to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the legal consequences of the harm occasioned by their failure to meet these obligations, on July 23 has been the subject of much discussion. While it is a welcome affirmation of the multilateral climate regime at a time when the U.S appears to have damaged it through its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, it also raises questions on, inter alia, its interpretation of the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and its occlusion of the development imperatives of the global South. How has it upheld the case for the global South? The ICJ's opinion has several elements that the global South, including India, should be able to welcome. First, the Court has emphasised the significance of the totality of the climate regime, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This is in sharp contrast to the view of developed countries that have argued for sidelining the Convention and dismissing the Protocol, stating that the Paris Agreement had become the sole binding instrument of the multilateral climate regime. Across several paragraphs in its opinion, the Court has set out how the obligations of countries, especially those of developed nations, flow from various articles of the UNFCCC, particularly the provision of extending climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries by developed nations. In underlining the foundational role of the UNFCCC, the Court has also reiterated the significance of the Convention's Annex-I and Annex-II, noting that the developed countries listed therein will continue to have additional obligations compared to the rest of the world. This is a firm rebuff, not only to the governments of the global North, but also to a vocal section of climate academia, that had proclaimed the end of Annex-based differentiation since the Paris accord was signed. In yet another affirmation of the global South's perspective, the ICJ opinion identifies the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR&RC), drawing on Article 3 of the Convention, as the 'core guiding principle for determining the implementation of the climate change treaties'. Further in para 152, it affirms universality to the CBDR&RC principle, noting that it 'guides the interpretation of obligations under international environmental law beyond its express articulation in different treaties', opening up the possibility for extending the principle to arenas like biodiversity. Additionally, the ICJ's opinion notes the qualification to differentiation between developed and developing nations introduced by the Paris Agreement with the addition of the phrase, 'and in the light of national circumstances' to the term CBDR&RC. The Court views the qualification as a nuance which points out that what constitutes a 'developed' or 'developing' nations is not static. This will undoubtedly be a bone of contention in further interpretations of this opinion. What about the temperature goal? While these reaffirmations of the fundamental principles and values of the climate regime are noteworthy there is also much in the opinion that conforms to the narrative that developed countries, allied with some of the small island states and a range of vulnerable developing countries, have attempted to build over the years in interpreting the Paris Agreement. The opinion insists that the temperature target for limiting global warming as in Article 2.1 (a) of the Paris Agreement, no longer holds in defining the obligation of states. Article 2.1 clearly designates 'well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels' as the primary goal, while 'pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C.' However, the Court argues that two paras from decisions of the 26th and 28th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, in which Parties have expressed agreement with the need to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, constitute an agreement among Parties to rewrite the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement itself. Hence, the opinion concludes, Parties' mitigation efforts must be aligned with collectively achieving the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal and not the range provided in the Agreement. This is a strange conclusion considering that the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold is likely to be passed in a very few years. Nor does the opinion engage itself with the consequences of the breach of the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. Even to lay opinion, it appears very odd that decisions taken in implementing an agreement should be interpreted as modifying the terms of the agreement itself. Much of the Court's enthusiasm for the 1.5 degrees Celsius target appears to stem from uncritical cherry-picking of a few headline statements from the Sixth Assessment Cycle reports (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Court has not considered it necessary that the IPCC reports themselves should be subject to scrutiny through the lens of equity. This is evident when it uncritically cites the IPCC's global target of GHG emissions reduction of 43% below 2020 levels by 2030 and 65% by 2035 for limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The recently concluded annual climate meeting of the UNFCCC held at Bonn, Germany, itself has now acknowledged the lack of equity and CBDR&RC in such projections. Has the Court broken new ground on enforcing obligations? Despite the extensive discussion on the obligations of states, in the context of climate laws and more generally in international law, the opinion does not articulate a more stringent framework of enforcement. In direct continuity with the established interpretation of the Paris Agreement by the global North, it holds that the provision of means of implementation as well as domestic mitigation action are only obligations of conduct (this means a duty which is to be performed towards achieving an outcome rather than guaranteeing the outcome itself). Only procedural aspects of the Paris Agreement, such as the timely and periodic submission of Nationally Determined Contributions are held to constitute stronger obligations of result. The opinion argues that even as obligations of conduct, the requirements on countries to meet their commitments can be sufficiently stringent. However, it depends on suitable courts with the requisite jurisdiction to enforce them and is contingent on the circumstances of every individual case. At best, the Court's opinion may be welcomed for reiterating the original intent of the Paris Agreement, in the face of the growing reluctance of developed nations to meet their obligations, but it breaks no significant new ground in this regard. Given the lack of appetite for climate action in the global North, and their opposition to even these weak obligations, the reiteration by the Court is undoubtedly of some value. What are some of the gaps in the opinion? The most striking lacuna in the opinion is its near-total sidelining of the twin challenge that global warming poses to the development of the global South, that is extensively discussed even in the IPCC. On the one hand southern nations will be increasingly unable to meet their energy needs for rapid poverty eradication and sustainable growth in the absence of adequate carbon space, while on the other hand low-carbon development requires finance and technology on a scale that remains out of reach. As Judge Xue Hanqin notes, in concluding her separate opinion, 'the Advisory Opinion fails to point out that, for peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change, the ultimate solution to guarantee them a clean, healthy and sustainable climate lies in a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all states based on international co-operation between developed and developing states.' With the opinion falling short on these two key issues for the global South, its qualification that equity and CBDR&RC would introduce no new obligations but only guide the interpretation and implementation of climate treaties, should be a matter of concern for developing countries. Much of the enthusiasm in global civil society for the opinion, stems from the prospect of further litigation at the national or regional level, with the opinion allowing the possibility that affected countries such as small island states could claim reparation or compensation. However, the opinion also makes clear that these would require independently establishing attribution, 'wrongfulness' and causation regarding the actions of Parties held responsible for harm, though it opens the door to their more expansive interpretation. On the issue of concerted global climate action though, and at the climate negotiations, it is unlikely that the advisory opinion would substantially move the needle, reproducing existing fault lines rather than overcoming them. As several of the separate opinions from various judges themselves indicate, the opinion may represent a missed opportunity rather than a game-changing intervention in the global climate discourse. T. Jayaraman is at the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai. Tejal Kanitkar is at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal.
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
ICJ ruling a game changer that can potentially turbocharge climate action
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (the United Nations' Organisation's principal judicial body) delivered a landmark Advisory Opinion, affirming that states must protect the climate system from the catastrophic impacts of climate change, notably through instruments such as the Paris Agreement and its ambition to cap global warming at 1.5°C relative to preindustrial levels. The court concludes in paragraph 457 (page 130) that 'the climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions'. These obligations, the court adds, emanate from several key instruments that states are party to, including among others: United Nations Charter; the Kyoto Protocol of 1997; the Conference of the Parties (COP) and its Paris Agreement of 2015; the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Montreal Protocol; the Biodiversity Convention; the Convention on Desertification; the Customary International Convention; and international human rights law. The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided a lot of the scientific basis that the court used to determine the urgency of climate change. Specifically, states' responsibilities include: 'mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change'; 'limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs'; co-operation 'with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the Convention'; complying 'with applicable provisions of the Protocol'; acting with due diligence in 'making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the Agreement' within the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; 'obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive nationally determined contributions'; and pursuing 'measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions'. The court added that failure to protect the environment and limit climate change was an internationally wrongful act that exposed states to lawsuits or other formal processes for compensation, remediation or reparation. Governments and activists around the world are hailing the ICJ decision as a game changer that can potentially turbocharge bolder and swifter climate action in light of increasingly severe extreme weather events. However, a lot of work still needs to be done for that dream to become a reality. Let us take a closer look. Background The idea to sue major polluting nations and corporations for their inaction as it pertains to moving faster to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was first initiated by students from the law faculty of the University of South Pacific. The government of Vanuatu backed the campaign and took it to the United Nations organisation (UN), which then referred it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 12 April 2023. Vanuatu and parties wanted the court to answer the following two questions: What are the legal obligations of states to protect the climate, today and tomorrow? What are the consequences if they fail to do so, particularly concerning the most vulnerable countries? The Southeast Asia, Asia Pacific regions, and even the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands have been watching nervously as sea levels rise. Vanuatu is among the Small Island Developing States that risk being wiped off the map due to rising sea levels caused by global warming, a fact highlighted by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in that famous Time Magazine cover. Indonesia is moving its capital from Jakarta to Nusantara, and Fiji has witnessed very rapid sea rise in the last half-century. Closer to Africa, Mayotte witnessed its most devastating cyclone in 2024. It is due to all these pressures that island nations are particularly active in international efforts to curb GHG emissions. After the decision was lodged, at least 99 other countries and organisations joined Vanuatu to argue for greater enforcement of international climate treaties and justiciability. Key paragraphs The Advisory Opinion is a clear and concise document that brings together all international instruments as they relate to protecting the environment inside one document, giving governments, judges, negotiation processes, trade unions, and so on the clarity that they need and a clear roadmap to making decisions. Where some have argued before that there is a void in terms of climate-change law, the court points out that there are more than enough legally binding instruments to draw from. Although the entire document is packed full of important decisions, I want to highlight just a few: Paragraph 249: 'In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, rather than being entirely discretionary as some participants argued, NDCs must satisfy certain standards under the Paris Agreement. All NDCs prepared, communicated and maintained by parties under the Paris Agreement must, when taken together, be capable of realizing the objectives of the Agreement which are set out in Article 2.' Paragraph 252: 'Accordingly, since the domestic mitigation obligations under Article 4, paragraph 2, establish an obligation of conduct, parties are required to act with due diligence in taking necessary measures to achieve the objectives set out in their successive NDCs.' Paragraph 256: 'The Court finds that specific obligations pertaining to adaptation are contained in Article 7, paragraph 9, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that '[e]ach Party shall, as appropriate, engage in adaptation planning processes and the implementation of actions, including the development or enhancement of relevant plans, policies and/or contributions'. This provision, introduced with the terms '[e]ach Party shall', imposes a legally binding obligation upon the parties to undertake adaptation planning actions.' Paragraph 260: 'The Court notes that the Paris Agreement establishes obligations of co-operation with respect to specific issue areas, such as adaptation, and loss and damage (Article 7, paragraphs 6 and 7; Article 8, paragraph 4).' Paragraph 268: '… the Court considers that the climate change treaties establish stringent obligations upon States to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions'. Paragraph 280: 'The Court reaffirms that States must fulfil their duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence.' Paragraph 308: 'Climate change is a common concern. Co-operation is not a matter of choice for States but a pressing need and a legal obligation.' Paragraph 323: 'States parties to the Montreal Protocol are under an obligation to phase out, according to a fixed schedule, the production and consumption of all the main ozone-depleting substances, including certain GHGs, through control measures.' Paragraph 376: 'The Court is thus of the view that the adverse effects of climate change, including, inter alia, the impact on the health and livelihoods of individuals through events such as sea level rise, drought, desertification and natural disasters, may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights. The Court will consider some of these rights, without attempting to be exhaustive.' Paragraph 393: 'The Court thus concludes that, under international law, the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' Paragraph 427: 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' Paragraph 445: 'As a general observation, the Court notes that breaches of States' obligations under question (a) may give rise to the entire panoply of legal consequences provided for under the law of State responsibility.' Paragraph 452. 'In the event that restitution should prove to be materially impossible, responsible States have an obligation to compensate.' Significance In terms of the wider implications of the ICJ's Advisory Opinion, this should change everything – in principle. That said, the opinion comes of course within a very difficult international context in which nihilism, political determinism and squabbles within and between the key political blocs make urgent climate action all but impossible. The race for AI, and the continued deployment of massive energy-hungry data centres, is not helping either. Let us recall that the UN Environment Programme's Emissions Gap Report, published in October 2022, had already admitted that the international community was falling short of the Paris Agreement goals. The World Meteorological Organisation recently confirmed that 2024 was the warmest year on record. In real terms, that translates to more intense heat waves, runaway fires, drought, deadly flash floods (in South Africa, Nigeria, Mali, the US), cyclones (Mayotte) and hurricanes (US). These events certainly used to occur before, but as we saw recently in the state of Texas in the US, they are developing faster and hitting communities with more ferocity. That said, the biggest benefit of the document lies in the fact that it tells the international community that the panoply of treaties and conventions that most countries in the world have acceded to has legal effect. It clarifies justiciability. Virtually every country on the planet is signatory to both the charter of the UN and the one setting up the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees the Conference of the Parties (COP). Legal jurisdictions can no longer wring their hands in anguish and complain that they do not have enough authority or precedence to rule on matters relating to climate change. Even the United States' argument that international treaties constitute lex specialis and should therefore yield or be subordinate to more stringent national laws, was deemed erroneous. Even countries that have not acceded to these instruments can also be held liable for their transgressions under customary international law. Second, the Advisory Opinion specifically mentions fossil fuels (paragraph 427) as something that governments have a duty to bring under control. I was in Nigeria the other day for a conference, and everybody was talking about Shell's divestment efforts. Similar divestment efforts have been going on in South Africa. Shell is the first high-profile multinational to move so speedily in its divestment efforts, but the number of companies trying to evade responsibility for CO2 emissions will only grow, and so, civil society organisations must push their national governments to take swifter action to hold all polluters to account before they disappear. The ICJ decision tells them how to prepare their arguments. It also means that governments and civil society actors must forge closer ties with a variety of actors in the Global North to bring serial polluters to book. Elsewhere, there has to be a realignment of the COP negotiation blocs. China caucuses with developing countries in the G77 plus China network at the Conference of the Parties, but during the proceedings, they argued that international climate agreements and conventions were only aspirational and should continue to be regarded as such. In trying to protect its status as the factory of the world, China was effectively throwing under the bus countries like Vanuatu, Nigeria, Bangladesh and countless others that are already feeling the full impacts of climate change. Something has to give, although many of these countries hold a lot of Chinese debt. Conclusion The ICJ's Advisory Opinion is going to be used in courts, boardrooms and government offices around the world for many years to come. However, the outcome in itself does not mean that governments will suddenly start respecting all their obligations. In a highly corporatised context where most of the serial polluters are based in powerful Global North countries that fund both the UN and the ICJ, we are not about to witness a sea change in behaviour. But there is more ammunition, no doubt about it. What we need to do more of is ramp up global North-South collaboration within a new internationalism that aggressively goes after major polluters.
Mail & Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Countries are legally liable for climate inaction, International Court of Justice rules
In its unanimous advisory opinion the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and to act with due diligence and co-operation to fulfill this obligation. (Wikimedia Commons) In its unanimous advisory opinion the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and to act with due diligence and co-operation to fulfill this obligation. This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The court ruled that if states breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances. To justify this decision, it used the commitments of member states to environmental and human rights treaties including the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, the ozone layer treaties and the Biodiversity Convention. The court, which was of the view that 'a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights', said the full enjoyment of human rights 'cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment'. To guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights, countries must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment. 'These measures may include, inter alia, taking mitigation and adaptation measures, with due account given to the protection of human rights, the adoption of standards and legislation, and the regulation of the activities of private actors.' International human rights law, climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties, as well as the relevant obligations under customary international law, inform each other. 'States must therefore take their obligations under international human rights law into account when implementing their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties and under customary international law, just as they must take their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties and under customary international law into account when implementing their human rights obligations,' the ICJ said. It found that the failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — 'may constitute an internationally wrongful act, which is attributable to that state'. The case was the largest ever seen by the ICJ, with the proceedings unprecedented in scale. There were 91 written statements filed by states and a further 62 comments submitted by states, international organisations and civil society groups. A record 97 states participated in the oral proceedings, which were held in the Hague in December. The consequences of climate change are 'severe and far-reaching', affecting both natural ecosystems and human populations, the court said. Rising temperatures are causing the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities with unprecedented flooding. 'Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and intense, devastating agriculture, displacing populations and exacerbating water shortages,' it said. 'Furthermore, the disruption of natural habitats is pushing certain species toward extinction and leading to irreversible loss of biodiversity. Human life and health are also at risk, with an increased incidence of heat-related illnesses and the spread of climate-related diseases. These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.' In September 2021, the Pacific Island state of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on climate change. This move was inspired by youth group After Vanuatu lobbied other UN member states to support this initiative in the General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, it adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the court. Two fundamental questions were posed before the court. What are states' obligations under international law to address climate change for present and future generations? What are the legal consequences under these obligations for states failing to do so? Noting that these advisory proceedings were 'unlike any that have previously come before the court', the ICJ said the questions posed by the General Assembly represented more than a legal problem. 'They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,' the court said. 'International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem.' A complete solution to 'this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem' requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. The ICJ emphasised that solving the climate crisis extends beyond law — collective human will and wisdom are vital 'at the individual, social and political levels'. This involves 'changing our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come'. While the court's advisory opinions are non-binding, they carry significant legal and moral authority, and help clarify and develop international law by defining the legal obligations of states. The ICJ's opinion provides new avenues for litigation, advocacy, and international pressure, especially for vulnerable countries and communities harmed by major emitting states, said Nomasango Masiye-Moyo, the co-ordinator of Natural Justice's environmental lawyers collective. For Africa, the statements by the ICJ on reparations mean that vulnerable citizens can seek remedy for 'ecological destruction, illegal eviction, While reparations have long been considered customary international law, the court's statements 'sketch a judicially acknowledged pathway for compensation, rehabilitation and restitution'. 'We hope that the court's findings will embolden many African communities and lawyers around the continent, to fiercely seek accountability and justice for harms done in their communities, historically and in the future.'
