Defining Climate Justice: Key issues at stake in the International Court of Justice climate change case

What issues are being heard?

Vanuatu, one of the Pacific island nations most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, spearheaded an initiative that brought climate change to the ICJ, seeking legal clarity on the responsibilities of states in addressing the global climate crisis. This initiative emerged as a response to the escalating existential threats faced by Pacific island nations, including rising sea levels, frequent tropical cyclones, and environmental degradation. In 2023 alone, three severe tropical cyclones hit Vanuatu, destroying houses, schools, infrastructure, plantations, and roads. 

Vanuatu's case, which has garnered the support of over 100 nations and various international organizations, seeks an advisory opinion from the ICJ on how international law can guide states' obligations to mitigate climate change, adapt to the impact of climate change, and provide reparations for damages caused. 

The ICJ is being asked to interpret several key issues:

• whether states have specific legal duties under international treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement to prevent harm to the global environment;
• whether customary international law principle – such as the "no harm" rule, equity, and intergenerational justice – impose binding obligations on states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and safeguards vulnerable populations; and
• how international law should address the responsibility of states whose inaction or excessive emissions have directly contributed to the climate crisis.

Why does it matter?

Establishing accountability in climate governance: As the first of its kind, this case seeks to elevate the climate crisis into the realm of international law, where binding obligations and accountability mechanisms could significantly influence states' behaviour. While existing treaties such as the Paris Agreement outline goals and targets, they often lack enforceable provisions or mechanisms to address historical responsibility and disproportionate impacts on vulnerable nations. An advisory opinion from the ICJ could provide legal guidance on these gaps, and in doing so, reshape global climate governance.

Strengthening the position of vulnerable nations: Vanuatu and other climate-vulnerable nations are seeking clarity on how to navigate the disproportionate burden these states bear despite contributing minimally to global emissions. While the ICJ's advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant moral and persuasive weight, potentially shaping global climate governance and strengthening accountability mechanisms. If successful, this case could create a legal precedent, bolstering efforts to hold high-emission countries accountable while reinforcing the urgency of collective global action against climate change.

What's next?

The ICJ held a two-week hearing from the December 2 2024 to December 13 2024 to listen to submissions from representatives of many nations and organisations. On the first day of the hearings, states debated whether their legal obligations to address climate change extend beyond the framework of the UNFCC. While the UN refers to the Paris Agreement as a legally binding treaty, it allows countries to independently determine their targets and policies through nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Germany and Saudi Arabia argued that their climate obligations are confined to this treaty, rejecting claims of additional legal responsibilities outside its scope. The court is expected to deliver an advisory opinion in early 2025.

Authored by Eseohe Imafidon, Amy Cleaves, and Adrian Walker.