The World Court Takes On the Climate Crisis
What difference would an Order from the World Court make to the domestic and international struggle to arrest dangerous climate change? We should find out soon.
That is because, commencing on Dec. 2, 2024, the International Court of Justice (known widely as the World Court) meeting in the Peace Palace, at the Hague, Netherlands, will decide on the obligations of nations to press the planet back from the brink of irretrievable climate damage, that is, to move from disaster to safety.
Does the World Court even retain the legal authority to issue an Order demanding that the major emitting nations phase out their major sources of global warming pollution? Indeed, I think it does. But will the Court actually exercise that authority? And even if it did, how could it enforce its own order? Again, we may in due course find these things out.
I’ll be there in the Hague to report to you on the proceeding, and to consider its implications for the United States.
I’ll be in the Hague to report back on the two-week ICJ hearing, and to consider its implications for the United States. See here to register for our upcoming webinar, slated for Saturday, December 14 — the day after the close of the ICJ proceedings. Two topics that we will discuss include:
- Could a strong ICJ order actually restrain any attempt by the incoming Administration to vastly expand its production, distribution in commerce, or use of oil, gas and coal?
- More positively, could a strong order actually encourage the US to move in the other direction? That is, could it bolster international pressure on the US and other major fossil fuel producing nations to embark on a serious program of decarbonization? Perhaps via more serious consideration of a rising carbon fee or, in the alternative, a meaningful set of regulations requiring an orderly phase out of fossil fuels produced for or used in energy systems?
As background, I provide here the full set of questions that the United Nations General Assembly referred to the International Court of Justice earlier last year. For now, I will just note my belief that the Court retains authority to answer these questions in full but, on the other hand, it also retains discretion to throw up its collective judicial hands and decline to exercise its authority.
Questions submitted to the International Court of Justice by the UN General Assembly (April 17, 2023)1ICJ Order of 20 APRIL 2023
Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the obligations of states (order 20 IV 23) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment,
(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?
(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
- States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
- Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?
Connecting the Dots
What has all the above to do with CPR Initiative and our fundamental strategy, that is, our determination to urge maximal use, or otherwise to directly enforce existing bedrock US law — so as to arrest dangerous climate change?
Well, for one thing, pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, legally binding treaties constitute “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
That fundamental injunction applies to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which commits the signatory nations to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It applies, as well, to the 2015 Paris Agreement to the UNFCCC, also a legally binding treat that requires the nations to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
But what does this all mean in practice, including with respect to our soon-upcoming initiatives? That is a question to which we will have occasion to return here soon enough.
Footnotes:
- 1ICJ Order of 20 APRIL 2023