The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has published written replies to the judges’ questions posed at the close of the oral hearings in the advisory proceedings on the obligation of States with respect to climate change. These responses will inform the Court in its deliberations towards an advisory opinion that will be delivered at a public sitting, the date of which is to be announced.
During the hearings that took place from 2-13 December 2024 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, 96 States and 11 international organizations presented oral statements. Having heard from the participants of the proceedings, members of the Court sought clarification on several issues.
According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) summary report of the hearings, “Judge Sarah Cleveland asked what, if any, specific obligations arise under international law for States within whose jurisdictions fossil fuels are produced.”
Judge Dire Tladi noted many speakers had interpreted Article 4 of the Paris Agreement (on mitigation, including the preparation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs)) based on the “ordinary meaning of the words, context, and elements of Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” He recalled many participants concluded that the obligation to submit NDCs is procedural in character. “Judge Tladi asked whether the ‘object and purpose’ of the Paris Agreement and the climate regime more generally influenced such interpretation, and if so, how,” ENB writes.
Judge Bogdan Aurescu noted the argument that there exists a right to a healthy environment in international law. He asked what the legal content of this right is – and what its relation is to other human rights relevant to the advisory opinion.
Judge Hilary Charlesworth asked about the significance of some States’ declaration upon ratification of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement that “ratification does not constitute a renunciation of any rights under international law concerning State responsibility for the adverse effects of climate change, and that no provision in the treaties can be interpreted as derogating from principles of general international law or any claims or rights concerning compensation and liability due to the adverse effects of climate change.”
Share: