The world’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), convened a landmark hearing on December 2nd, 2024, launching what may be its largest case ever. For two weeks, over 100 countries and international organizations will present arguments on the crucial question of states’ legal obligations to combat climate change. This monumental undertaking, culminating in an advisory opinion expected in 2025, holds immense significance, particularly for vulnerable small island developing states (SIDS).
The proceedings in The Hague mark a significant escalation in the global fight against climate change. The initiative, spearheaded by SIDS, follows a string of largely disappointing international climate summits, culminating in the perceived inadequacy of the COP29 agreement. Vanuatu, a low-lying archipelago acutely threatened by rising sea levels, extreme weather, and water insecurity, poignantly voiced the frustration of nations disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing minimally to global emissions. Their representative highlighted the “prolonged and systemic failure of the COP process,” emphasizing the devastating human cost—lost lives, cultures, and livelihoods.
This case represents a significant shift toward legal accountability. The call for an advisory opinion from the ICJ is a direct attempt to solidify a robust international legal framework. Originating from a proposal by Fijian law students five years ago, the initiative gained momentum and was championed by Vanuatu, ultimately leading to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) requesting the ICJ’s opinion on states’ obligations regarding climate change.
The ICJ’s 15 judges are grappling with two fundamental questions: first, what is the legal duty of states to protect the climate? Second, what are the legal consequences when states cause significant harm through their actions or inactions? The judges have already been briefed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the overwhelming scientific consensus confirming the reality and severity of climate change.
While the ICJ’s advisory opinion won’t be legally binding, its impact will be profound. It could serve as a powerful catalyst for change, anchoring climate action within the rule of law. This, in turn, could potentially hold countries accountable for inadequate responses to climate change, influencing court cases worldwide—especially those where SIDS seek compensation from developed nations for historical climate damage.
The sheer scale of participation underscores the historic nature of these proceedings. With 98 states and 12 international organizations—many participating in such a forum for the first time—submitting a total of 91 written statements and 62 additional comments, this case showcases the most extensive participation in ICJ history. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu’s case, aptly described it as “the biggest case in human history,” emphasizing that this isn’t about future threats, but the present reality of disappearing territories, destroyed livelihoods, and violated human rights.
The ICJ hearing is one of three concurrent requests for climate-related advisory opinions from major international courts. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) already ruled on states’ obligations concerning marine pollution related to climate change. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to issue its opinion in 2025. The ICJ’s decision, expected in 2025, holds the potential to reshape the international landscape, compelling states to address climate change decisively and ushering in an era of greater accountability. Vanuatu’s powerful statement—that the outcome will “reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations”—perfectly encapsulates the immense stakes involved.
