In a recent article, Prabhash Ranjan, Professor and Vice Dean at Jindal Global Law School, discusses a group of 16 countries led by Vanuatu who are seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue of climate change. The ICJ's advisory opinions are non-binding but carry normative weight and clarify international law on a relevant issue. The ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change will also be useful in climate-related litigation at the national level.
Vanuatu's initiative seeks to clarify the legal obligations of all countries to prevent and redress the adverse effects of climate change. The draft resolution piloted by Vanuatu seeks answers to two questions from the ICJ. First, what are the international law obligations of countries toward the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for the present and future generations? Second, given these international legal obligations, what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate system, the Small Island Developing (SID) states, and other people of the present and future generations?
The ICJ can use the ‘no-harm’ principle to shed light on equivocal provisions of the Paris Agreement and to elaborate on the legal principles that might help the operationalisation of the ‘loss and damage’ fund. In addition, the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law has sought the advisory opinion of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to determine the specific obligations of the countries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea about preventing, controlling, and reducing pollution of the marine environment.
While these advisory opinions are not a panacea, they are part of a multi-pronged approach to saving the planet. Developed countries and groupings like the G-20 should support these laudable initiatives of the SID states.
