CiR2P Option 14 | Involve the International Court of Justice

DISCUSSION:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can play a role in encouraging states to strengthen climate action policies, and thereby indirectly protect vulnerably populations from climate related harm.

The ICJ is the United Nation’s principal judicial organ. The Court itself, which is composed of 15 judges, has a twofold role: first, to settle legal disputes between states in accordance with international law, and second, to give advisory opinions on legal matters referred to it by duly authorised UN organs and specialised agencies.

The ICJ is limited in the sense that it can only rule on state-to-state issues (not try individuals); and states are only bound by its decisions to the extent that they voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction.

Its greatest strength comes from its important advisory and norm setting role.

Pacific island states have requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ several times concerning the duties of states to ensure that GHG emissions from their territory do not harm other states. In other words: the ICJ to date has only been used by vulnerable states to pressure big emitting states to reduce their emissions. The central argument used by smaller states is that unbounded emissions and warming is eroding their human rights.

To date, there has been little discussion on whether, and how, big emitting countries could use the ICJ, and its advisory opinion particularly, to pressure governments that are ruling over climate exposed populations to implement climate action programs such as adaptation-focused development programs with transparent funding allocation, monitoring and evaluation processes. 

The UK and the US could explore options to work through the UNGA, UNSC, or special agencies such as the FAO or WHO to request an ICJ advisory opinion on whether a particular state is failing in its duty to prevent climate change related harm on its population to the extent of their capability.