Activists and Vulnerable Nations Condemn U.S. Arguments Against Climate Obligations at ICJ Hearing

Testimony from the United States during the ongoing International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing on Wednesday evoked anger from climate activists and vulnerable nations, as the planet’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter argued against nations being legally obligated to take measures to fight the climate crisis.

The oral arguments were part of the historic climate hearing in The Hague, where climate-vulnerable countries like Vanuatu and other small island nations are calling for rich polluters that are most responsible for global heating to be held accountable.

“The International Court of Justice’s proceedings are a profound moment in global climate accountability. The hearings elevate science to the forefront, ensuring international law reflects the realities of climate impacts and the urgent need for global action,” said Dr. Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Science Hub for Climate Litigation, in a press release from UCS. “Yet in today’s oral arguments, the United States — the world’s largest historical polluter of heat trapping emissions — resisted calls for climate accountability. Instead of taking responsibility for its contributions to the climate crisis, the United States used its 30-minute slot to downplay the role of the courts for global climate action, emphasize non-binding national commitments under the Paris Agreement, and reject the notion of historical responsibility.”

“By framing climate change as a collective action challenge without clear legal obligations for individual states, the United States dismissed the potential for redress or binding accountability measures that advance justice for climate-vulnerable nations,” Merner added.

In its arguments, the U.S. emphasized sticking with the 2015 and Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as other treaties, reported The Guardian.

“Any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime,” Margaret Taylor, legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State, told the ICJ judges, as The Guardian reported.

The response from climate activists illustrated the need for wealthy nations to be held accountable for their disproportionate contributions to the climate crisis, as well as their outsized evasion of responsibility.

“Once again, we witness a disheartening attempt by the U.S. to evade its responsibilities as one of the world’s largest polluters,” said Vishal Prasad, campaign director for the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, as reported by The Guardian. “The U.S. is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights and reject climate justice.”

Other of the world’s largest fossil fuel economies and biggest greenhouse gas emitters — China, Australia and Saudi Arabia — also argued against being held legally accountable for the pollution they produce.

“It is absurd for the Biden administration to argue before the ICJ that countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution, especially as it prepares to turn over the executive office to a proven climate denier like president-elect Trump, whose policies are likely to deeply harm U.S. climate action,” said Ashfaq Khalfan, climate justice director at Oxfam.

Vulnerable nations fought for years for rich polluters to be held accountable, and the UN responded by asking the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the obligations of states in combating climate change, along with what the legal consequences would be if they do not do their part.

“The ICJ’s advisory opinion has the potential to reshape international climate governance by providing clear, authoritative guidance on nation’s obligations under existing law. This process showcases how the best available science can illuminate pathways to protect human rights, advance equity, and compel ambitious climate action,” Merner said in the press release. “In the face of stonewalling from major polluters, we applaud the leadership of Vanuatu and others for advancing this process. These proceedings must continue to center the voices of frontline communities.”

More than 100 countries and organizations are providing testimony over the 12-day hearings.

View of the ICJ courtroom at the start of the hearing on Dec. 2, 2024. UN Photo / ICJ-CIJ / Frank van Beek

Advisory opinions by the ICJ are not binding, but nonetheless carry significant weight both legally and politically. The opinion of the court will be cited as an authoritative statement during future international climate negotiations and litigation.

Ralph Regenvanu, special climate change envoy for Vanuatu, on Wednesday expressed disappointment in the U.S. and other major polluters on behalf of his country.

“These nations, some of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions… these treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability,” Regenvanu said, as The Guardian reported.

Vanuatu is leading the push for financial support and compensation for loss and damage for the countries that are most vulnerable to climate impacts — especially Pacific island nations — such as sea-level rise, flooding, drought and wildfires.

Taylor was dismissive of the ICJ weighing in on historic emitters being held responsible for their past pollution.

“An advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate whether individual states or groups of states have violated obligations pertaining to climate change in the past or bear responsibility for reparations… nor would it be appropriate to do so,” Taylor said, as reported by The Guardian.

There are three international courts of law responsible for providing advisory opinions concerning the climate crisis, including the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

Earlier this year, ITLOS found that nations have a legal obligation to control greenhouse gases as pollutants.

“By leveraging science and law together, the ICJ can help course-correct the international response to climate change, providing justice and hope for future generations as they endeavor to stave off some of the worst climate harms. No matter what the court decides, civil society must continue to push for decision-making guided by science and climate-vulnerable communities, as well as challenge the outsized political power wielded by fossil fuel interests seeking to obstruct and delay climate goals for the sake of their own bottom lines,” Merner said in the press release.