5 days ago
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits if it pays UN, Vanuatu lawyer says
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits from other countries if it makes 'significant and meaningful' contributions reflecting its historical responsibility for global warming to a UN fund, Vanuatu's lawyer has said.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened the door for countries to sue each other for contributing to climate change, including past emissions, in a landmark legal opinion on Wednesday.
The case was brought by a coalition of nations suffering from rising sea levels and extreme weather, but which have barely contributed to global pollution.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, associate professor of sustainability law at the University of Amsterdam, is legal counsel in the case for Vanuatu, the world's most climate-vulnerable island.
'The opinion provides a legal basis for such a lawsuit should any state choose to pursue that? Whether or not that is chosen is of course another question,' she told the Telegraph the day after her courtroom victory.
'Litigation is not really in anyone's interest, certainly also not in the interest of states that are seeking reparations for climate harms,' she added in an exclusive interview.
In 2022, world governments agreed to set up the UN Loss and Damage fund to compensate states that are disproportionately harmed by climate change. It is still at an early stage of implementation.
It has initial capital of about £517m but the fund is expected to need trillions to cover loss and damage, and many governments have not yet committed funds to it. In 2023, the UK pledged up to £40m as an early contribution.
Professor Wewerinke-Singh said Britain was involved in talks over the fund and needed to put more money into it.
'If that happens, and the contributions of the UK are significant and meaningful, and show that the UK is mindful of its historical responsibility, then I think climate vulnerable states will not rush to sue the UK,' she said.
Climate vulnerable states were aware they were harmed by a problem they did not cause, and it was not fair for them to be forced to depend on charity, Professor Wewerinke-Singh said.
In 2015, Vanuatu lost 64 per cent of its GDP when it was hit by a typhoon in an extreme weather event.
'Vanuatu and all the climate-vulnerable states are finding themselves in a state of continuing crisis,' she said.
'There needs to be a shifting of the burden from the victims to the polluters. This opinion makes it clear that those who are harmed indeed have rights to claim reparations.'
The ICJ opinion has said it is up to states to decide how to assign blame for climate change. If they failed to do so, the courts could, she said.
Professor Wewerinke-Singh said liability could be worked out by looking at each country's overall contribution to emissions that can be quantified.
'Basically the proportion of contribution can then be matched with the proportion that states should pay for damages,' she said.
Though the UK contributed close to 100 per cent of all global CO2 emissions in the 1700s, this share has rapidly declined over time, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget.
At 4.4 per cent it now sits behind the United States (23.8 per cent), the European Union (16.5 per cent), and China (15.0 per cent).
A lawsuit could be launched by a single nation or a large coalition of them.132 nations supported the ICJ case.
Senior Conservatives and Reform UK politicians have urged the Government to ignore the opinion amid fears Labour will follow it, as Britain implemented an ICJ advisory opinion when it gave the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.
The advisory opinion issued on Wednesday in The Hague is a way of clarifying specific questions of international law, and is not legally binding. It does carry moral authority and will be influential on the future of environmental litigation.
Vanuatu's lawyer said it was a 'mistake to treat the opinion as non-binding' because the law that the court had clarified with the opinion was binding.
She said, 'If states don't do what the court says needs to be done, then they breach their obligations, their hard law obligations. So it really is a shift.'
Even if a state walked out of the UN Paris Agreement, like the US is doing, it could not walk out of those obligations, she said.
Professor Wewerinke-Singh was asked if she feared that historical climate reparations could be caught up in the same culture wars as demands for reparations for slavery.
She admitted it was a risk but added, 'when we talk about reparations, it may sound very polarising, but it doesn't need to be.
'It can be a very collaborative process. It doesn't need to be contentious. It doesn't need to be about court battles. It can be done in a very civilised, mature way.'
She said the world needed to discuss how to settle the issue 'in a way that benefits us all, that keeps us all safe, that ends the climate crisis, but also redesigns societies in ways that are sustainable and so everybody can have a dignified life'.
After the decision Ralph Regenvanu, its minister of climate change adaptation, said Vanuatu would take the ICJ ruling to the UN General Assembly and 'pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision'.
Legal analysis of the opinion for its government said, 'For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice.'
