The UN's highest court has determined that the country can sue each other about the effects of climate change. The groundbreaking decision at the International Court of Justice in The Hague is welcomed in many African countries. This disproportionately owes the costs of climate change, but it is only responsible for the emissions that drive it.
African countries have long argued that the US, Europe and other major emitters must pay to guide reduction efforts and protect poor countries from the effects of climate change. However, the UN-led COP process does not provide the transformative amount of capital needed to protect the continent from the worst effects of climate change. Azerbaijan's COP29 ended with condemnation last year. “We will leave Baku without the ambitious climate funding targets, without the concrete plan to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and without the comprehensive support desperately needed for adaptation and loss and damage,” said Evans Niwa, chairman of COP29's minimal developing countries bloc. “This is not just a mistake. It's a betrayal.”
Under the agreed text, the government had set targets by developed countries to support at least $300 million in climate finance by 2035, but the figures were widely recognized as just a small portion of $1.2 trillion developing countries. As we report in this issue, there are indications that African negotiators are losing faith before the COP30 held in Belem, Brazil. Can legal measures provide alternative remedies routes due to the disillusionment setting?
Call a lawyer
Developing countries are likely happy that the courts of global jurisdiction have opened a route to legal liability for countries that ignore climate obligations. In particular, they would be pleased to determine that developing countries have the right to seek damages to the effects of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.
Additionally, Justice Iwasaki Yuji said that if the nation does not develop the most ambitious plans possible to tackle climate change, it could constitute a violation of its promise under the groundbreaking Paris Agreement. He also said that broader international laws apply to countries to protect the environment and climate.
System – In other words, countries like the United States that have notified their intention to quit the Paris Agreement are still legally liable.
It is also known that countries are responsible for the companies operating within them. Importantly, the ruling could open the door to future legal cases where developing countries seek compensation for the historical liability of wealthy countries for emissions. All of these are welcomed by African countries. However, the court's decision was non-binding and the judge ruled that it would be difficult to see which part of climate change caused.
Future decisions must be on a case-by-case basis. For example, if an extreme weather event hits an African country, those seeking legal relief must prove that climate change has caused it.
But ultimately, the long and costly legal battle of patrolling developing countries against wealthy countries is not in anyone's interest, except for lawyers who stand to benefit from the torrent of lawsuits. After two years of detention at Abu Dhabi and Azerbaijan's oil hubs, this year's “global south” country, Brazil's COP30 offers a good opportunity to bring the concerns of developing countries to the forefront. Legal measures on the horizon should recognize that it is in their interests and in Africa to cut back on more ambitious financial contracts before they are forced to do so.
