THE HAGUE, Netherlands (CN) — The United States told judges at the U.N.’s top court on Wednesday that the Paris agreement is sufficient to address climate change and that further legal obligations are not needed.
The International Court of Justice opened the largest case it has ever undertaken on Monday, hearing arguments on the legal obligations countries have to combat climate change and what they must do to repair existing environmental damage.
The Hague-based court is hearing from nearly 100 countries, ranging from the United States to Fiji, over two weeks.
In back-to-back addresses, the United States and Russia both argued it’s unfair to single out individual countries for “more” obligations and that there are existing legal agreements to combat climate change.
“States’ international legal obligations in respect of climate change are found primarily in the United Nations climate change regime, and the Paris Agreement in particular,” Margaret Taylor, a legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State told the court’s 15 judges.
The 2015 treaty calls for limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or at least below 2 degrees Celsius.
In 2023, the U.N. General Assembly voted to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal obligations countries have to combat climate change and what they must do to repair existing environmental damage.
The push for the request was led by the island nation of Vanuatu, a chain of some 80 islands that stretches about 500 miles in the South Pacific Ocean.
“The conduct is unlawful, it must cease, and its consequences must be repaired,” Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change, Ralph Regenvanu said in his opening remarks on Monday. “It is the most consequential case in the history of the court.”
But not all countries want aggressive measures. Saudi Arabia, Australia and now the United States and Russia have argued that the Paris Agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are the defining legal agreements on climate change and the court should defer to them.
The U.S. also pushed back on the idea that the country should be responsible for its historic emissions. “It was only in the late 1980s that states became aware of the causes and risks associated with climate change,” Taylor said.
A number of developing countries have argued that since countries like the United States have been able to benefit from greenhouse gas emissions, they should pay reparations and be forced to reduce more.
Russia also took an opportunity to hit back at sanctions imposed since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “These measures have prevented further mitigation efforts,” Maksim Musikhin of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the court.
The hearings started just a week after the end of the annual United Nations climate summit, known as COP. Richer countries agreed to pay $300 billion a year by 2035 to help with climate change mitigation — substantially less than the $1.3 trillion a year vulnerable countries say is needed.
By February all U.N. member states will have to submit plans for reducing emissions and adaptation measures.
Though nonbinding, advisory opinions carry significant legal and political weight. The court has previously taken up questions about the independence of Kosovo, the separation of Chagos from Mauritius and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
In July, judges found a myriad of Israeli policies — including backing settlements and exploiting natural resources — violate international law and said all countries who assist Israel with its illegal activities are also in breach of their obligations.
The ICJ has another request pending. The International Labor Organisation has asked the high court whether workers have a right to strike.
Requests for advisory opinion can come from the General Assembly, the Security Council and around 20 other U.N.-affiliated organizations.
In May, the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found that countries must take action to fight back against rising global temperatures and increasingly destructive storms in a separate advisory opinion. The world’s top maritime tribunal was asked by the Commission of Small Island States — a body formed in 2021 solely to pursue the advisory opinion that includes Antigua and Barbuda, Niue, Palau, Saint Vincent, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu — to weigh in on sea level rise.
Other courts have also found that states have obligations to combat climate change. In the first international court decision, the European Court of Human Rights in April sided with a group of senior Swiss women who argued their government violated their rights by failing to protect them from the impact of a warming planet.
Climate activists in the Netherlands and Germany have also succeeded in bringing cases against their governments for failing to act. The Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, in the landmark Urgenda decision.