Seeking opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue of climate change

(MainsGS2:Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.)

Context:

• A group of 16 countries has launched a gallant effort to fight the problem of climate change at the United Nations (UN). 
• The group led by Vanuatu (an island country in the South Pacific Ocean)  seeks an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue of climate change.

Jurisdictions of ICJ:

• The ICJ has two types of jurisdictions: contentious and advisory. 
• While contentious jurisdiction refers to resolving legal disputes between consenting states, under advisory jurisdiction, the UN General Assembly (UNGA), the Security Council (SC) and other specialised bodies of the organisation can request the ICJ for an opinion on a legal question. 
• Unlike decisions given under the contentious jurisdiction, the ICJ’s advisory opinions are non-binding. 
• Yet, they carry normative weight and clarify international law on a relevant issue. 
• The ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will also be handy in climate-related litigation at the national level.

Vanuatu’s initiative:

• Notwithstanding the presence of several international legal instruments on climate change such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, the international community has fallen short of delivering concrete solutions to the problem of climate change.
• The recently concluded 27th UN Climate Change Conference (COP-27) where countries failed to narrow their differences on critical issues such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions perfectly exemplifies the failure of the international community to get its act together on the issue of climate change.
• Small Island Developing (SID) states such as Vanuatu are most vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels. 
• Accordingly, in September 2021, Vanuatu launched an initiative, through the UNGA, to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ to “clarify the legal obligations of all countries to prevent and redress the adverse effects of climate change”. 
• Since then, the initiative has gathered momentum with reportedly more than 100 countries backing the idea.

Necessary opinion of ITLOS:

• It is not just the ICJ whose advisory opinion is being sought rather the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, comprising countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu, has sought the advisory opinion of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). 
• ITLOS has been requested to determine the specific obligations of the countries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea about preventing, controlling, and reducing pollution of the marine environment. 
• The challenges of ocean warming, sea level rise and ocean acidification are all linked to the marine environment.

Not a panacea:

• These advisory opinions are not a panacea rather they may even turn out to be double-edged swords depending on the kind of verdict delivered. 
• Nonetheless, as part of a multi-pronged approach to saving our planet, one should welcome the role of international courts. 
• Developed countries and groupings like the G-20 should support these laudable initiatives of the SID states. 

Conclusion:

• Environment and climate sustainability are important themes of G-20, thus, India, as the president of the G-20, should take a lead given its relentless emphasis on LiFE (developing environment-friendly lifestyle) campaign.