Environment
Page 19
Intervening where Climate Diplomacy has Failed - The Potential of an Advisory Opinion on Climate Change By Katharina Neumann, Deputy Editor, SS Law and Political Science The last Conference of the Parties, the supreme decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), serves as a distressing example of the insufficient political and diplomatic efforts to combat climate change. In light of this, those at the frontline of climate change are reverting to measures outside of established international frameworks to combat the crisis. Litigation, for example, has recently become an increasingly successful tool to hold governments and businesses accountable. This is illustrated by the famous Urgenda decision (Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands), a Dutch Supreme Court case that established a duty of care on behalf of the Government towards its citizens in climate change matters; or the Shell ruling, (Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc) which required the company to reduce its global emissions by 45 per cent by 2030. Encouraged by these outcomes in national courts, the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu recently announced that it will take international initiative by seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change. Vanuatu is an island state in the Pacific with a population of 307,000 people living on 83 different islands. Island states such as Vanuatu are on the frontline of the effects of climate change, facing rising sea levels and more regular storms that are progressively derailing their economies and will over time threaten their very existence as a country. Vanuatu is therefore a standing example that current efforts to reduce climate change, particularly action taken for disproportionately-affected developing countries within current multilateral mechanisms such as the Paris Agreement, are insufficient. By seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ, Vanuatu has a justified intent to re-establish and clarify the current and future legal obligations of all countries, with a goal of preventing and redressing the adverse effects of climate change and establishing clear standards for climate action. A secondary goal of this submission is the rectification of the clear failings of international climate change negotiations over the past 30 years, as Vanuatu’s position becomes increasingly precarious as a direct result. Vanuatu will rely on Article 96(1) of the UN Charter, which gives the General Assembly (UNGA) the authority to request advisory opinions from the ICJ. This would have to be supported by the majority of UN member states. It is a tactical gamble by the small island state, as this decision increases the legitimacy and profile of the request but will also make it more difficult to achieve when it is required to be approved by the General Assembly. Issuing advisory opinions is one of the ICJ’s three major functions. Under Article 65(1) of the ICJ Statute, the Court may give an advisory opinion on “any legal question” at the request of a body authorised to make such a request. While advisory opinions are non-binding, they are still influential in the development of international law and identification of its status, as they express the view of the foremost authority of international law on a particular issue. The purpose of advisory opinions is not to settle a legal dispute, but to assist the requesting organ in its efforts to deal with the contested issue. Thus, one crucial characteristic of advisory opinions is that they do not demand the consent usually required from a state whose actions may be the object of the Court’s attention. An advisory opinion on climate change may serve as a catalyst to accelerate progress in the fight against the
