The International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded its landmark hearings on Friday, 13 December 2024, addressing the obligations of states in the context of climate change and its impacts on vulnerable nations.
The hearings, which gained significant international attention, highlighted the urgent need for accountability and action against climate change impacts, particularly on vulnerable nations.
The ICJ is expected to deliver its advisory opinion in early 2025, which will offer critical guidance on state obligations under international law. Although the opinion is influential, it is not legally binding.
Over the past two weeks, the hearings underscored overwhelming international support for addressing historical emissions and climate accountability.
Many have highlighted how the actions of historically polluting countries have violated fundamental human rights, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities, particularly in small island developing states.
As the hearings concluded, representatives from three international organisations and youth leaders, who represent 79 climate-vulnerable countries, gathered for a joint media briefing to discuss the outcome of the ICJ’s deliberations and the future of climate action.
Cristelle Pratt, Assistant Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS), stressed the importance of recognising the historical responsibility of a few states for climate change and their ongoing failure to address the crisis.
“Throughout these proceedings, the OACPS has emphasised that the conduct responsible for climate change, through the emissions of greenhouse gases over more than a century, was undertaken with full knowledge of its harmful consequences for decades,” Pratt said.
“It’s fundamentally unwarrantable under international law,” she continued, calling out the role of colonising nations in exacerbating the climate crisis.
“This conduct not only violates duties of prevention, due diligence, self-determination, and human rights protection, but it’s also discriminatory, embedded in a colonial and racist legacy.
“This conduct is attributable to a handful of states, most of which are colonisers or supporters of colonisers. When emissions from their former colonies are correctly attributed to them, their shared responsibility grows even larger.”
Pratt emphasised the disproportionate impact climate change has had on marginalised communities.
“For too long, Africans, peoples of African descent, Indigenous peoples, and the peoples of small island developing states have been forced to bear the brunt of this crisis, one that flows directly from conduct rooted in racist and colonial oppression.
“Their capacity to adapt has been severely constrained by these historical injustices. Yet, despite the overwhelming consensus that the relevant conduct is unlawful, the small minorities of participants have had the audacity to deny their role,” she said.
Pratt urged the court to reject attempts by a minority of states to absolve themselves of moral responsibility.
“We urge the court to roundly reject these attempts to rewrite history and explain legal accountability,” she said.
“The vast majority of participants affirm that the conduct causing climate change is unlawful, that it must cease immediately, and those responsible must remedy the manifold harms inflicted. By doing so, the court can help bring about a future guided by equity and justice, rather than one that perpetuates the colonial and racial dimensions that have long defined the climate crisis.”.
Brenda Reson Sapuro, a youth representative, conveyed optimism for future generations despite the challenges presented by climate change.
“We still stand hopeful because we have told our stories. We have told our stories from our heart,” Sapuro said.
“We believe that the law is also on our side. We have argued this legal argument that tends to show that what is happening, the injustices that are happening, should stop.””
Dr Eselealofa Apinelu, Secretary General of the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS), highlighted the existential threat climate change poses to low-lying islands.
“We are asking the court to clarify, amongst other things, and also to please take into account the science,” Dr Apinelu said.
“The science doesn’t lie, and the science is already spelling death for the small countries like Tuvalu and all the other member countries that come from very small and low-lying islands.”
Dr Apinelu stressed that small island nations are facing an existential crisis due to rising sea levels and climate-related disasters, urging the court to consider the dire situation of these vulnerable states.
“We don’t have hills, we don’t have mountains,” he continued. “And when the waters are creeping right from beneath your feet, you’re just sitting there unsure of what to do.”
Dr Stuart Minchin, Director-General of the Pacific Community (SPC), highlighted the real-world impacts of climate change on Pacific Island nations.
“The science is real, and it demonstrates the existential crisis that the Pacific is facing,” Dr Minchin said.
“We’ve seen impacts on our fisheries and communities due to sea level rise.”
Dr Minchin also underscored the challenges Pacific nations face in accessing climate finance, with the Pacific receiving only 0.22 percent of global climate finance.
“This is not enough for the needs we have,” he said, calling for more action and greater financial support for climate-vulnerable countries.
Vishal Prasad, a representative of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), shared his reflections on the proceedings and the importance of youth involvement.
“The campaign that was born many years ago, culminating today with the completion of the oral hearings, is a reminder that we have a chance,” Prasad said.
“We’re hopeful that the ICJ has heard our voice, has heard the voices of frontline communities.”
Prasad expressed disappointment at the resistance from some countries to acknowledge the science and the human rights violations at the heart of the climate crisis.
“Some of the most surprising things we’ve seen in the hearings have been how outrageous some of the arguments have been from specific countries,” he said.
“They’ve questioned the science, the validity of human rights, and even the concept of future generations”
However, Prasad also praised the solidarity shown by global South countries.
“We believe these voices have been heard and we’re hopeful it’s strong,” he said.
As the ICJ moves toward delivering its advisory opinion, the global community remains united in calling for urgent climate action and accountability.
Leaders from vulnerable countries and organisations continue to advocate for justice, pushing for a future where climate action is guided by equity, justice, and the protection of human rights.
