Antigua and Barbuda is a small island state suffering the extreme impacts of a global climate emergency. Like many nations with relatively low per capita carbon emissions, the Caribbean archipelagic country is being swamped by the rising seas and extreme storms that much bigger greenhouse gas emitters helped create.
Gaston Browne, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday that sea level rise driven by “unchecked emissions” has eroded island coastlines and is “swallowing land that is vital to our country.”
He is one of nearly 100 nation representatives stating their climate case to the ICJ in The Hague.
The hope is that failures to cut planet-heating fossil fuel emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperatures rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F), will be declared a violation of international law.
In 2023 the United Nations, led by the Pacific island state of Vanuatu, specifically requested that the ICJ adjudicate on climate responsibility, having expressed “profound alarm that emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise” despite ambitious climate targets.
Though any advisory opinion issued by the ICJ will not be binding, experts say the court’s stance on a state’s obligation to act on climate change could set an important precedent for further litigation cases against polluters.
‘Devastating our lives’
Browne also told the court that Barbuda was mostly destroyed by Hurricane Irma in 2017. “Barbuda clearly did not stand a chance,” he said of the massive storm that forced most of the island’s inhabitant to evacuate to Antigua.
Almost 50% of houses on Barbuda were left uninhabitable after Irma and a second powerful hurricane hit in as many weeks. And the island is still burdened with huge debt from a tropical cyclones made stronger due to rising ocean temperatures, according to climate scientists.
“We come to you because existing action has not adequately addressed the crisis that is devastating our lives and our future,” Browne told the ICJ at a time when fossil fuel emissions are again rising as climate action stagnates.
Ralph Regenvanu, the special envoy for climate change and the environment from Vanuatu, opened the proceeding on Monday by stating that continued emissions expansion was “unlawful” and “must cease.”
“We find ourselves on the front lines of a crisis we did not create, a crisis that threatens our very existence,” he said of a nation facing worsening climate-fueled storms and sea level rise.
Youth climate activist Cynthia Houniuhi from the Solomon Islands in Oceania told the ICJ judges that major polluting nations need to be held accountable “to help us course correct and renew hope in humanity’s ability to address the greatest challenge of our time.”
The tropical archipelago nation is one of the world’s most climate vulnerable, where floods, cyclones and even droughts are becoming more extreme.
Emitters reject ICJ’s climate jurisdiction
Despite calls to articulate a legal opinion that confirms a state’s duty to act on climate change, large fossil fuel-producing nations such as the United States questioned the court’s jurisdiction.
Margaret L. Taylor, legal adviser at the US State Department, said any “legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation” that is identified by the court should come through existing UN climate treaties, primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Speaking at The Hague, Taylor said the United States — the world’s largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases — wanted the court to only judge in a way that “preserves and promotes the centrality” of existing treaties.
The United Nations had requested that the ICJ outline any legal consequences for states that damage the climate. But the US played down the court’s authority to enforce climate compensation claims on large emitters, for example.
Taylor said the ICJ should not weigh whether countries have “violated obligations” in the past regarding climate policy. “Nor would it be appropriate,” she said, for the court to decide whether states have a “responsibility for reparations.”
Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said the United States was seeking to “evade its responsibilities as one of the world’s largest polluters,” and had a “blatant disregard for the pressing urgency of the climate crisis.”
“The US is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights, and reject climate justice,” he said.
On the first day of hearings, Saudi Arabia, like the United States, urged the court to be cautious in its legal opinion, arguing that UN treaties on climate change already provided a comprehensive blueprint for state climate action.
China, the biggest global greenhouse gas emitter, insisted that existing UN climate negotiations should remain the “primary channel” to govern action, a position also backed by fossil fuel powerhouse Australia.
Ralph Regenvanu of Vanuatu expressed disappointment at efforts to limit the ICJ’s jurisdiction on climate under the guise of maintaining current accords.
“These treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability,” the special envoy said. “There needs to be an accounting for the failure to curb emissions and the climate change impacts.”
Edited by: Tamsin Walker
