Climate Change and International Law

INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Law: Climate Change

Question 1

Climate change has been a priority in contemporary times amidst rapid industrialization that has been observed to deteriorate the weather implications on human lives and the destruction of the Ozone layer. Forests have been highlighted as the saviors of this situation, for which international collaborative efforts have now been instigated to save them. Glasgow Leaders’ Conference is one of those endeavors that attempts to answer the query of forest degradation that happened in the last few years (UK Cop 26, 2021).

The normative value of the conference holds as the integrity of environmental protection is embedded within the conference’s rules. Forests are considered one of the means through which livelihoods and sustenance could be ensured for human lives. It would not be wrong to say that saving bird and animal lives through the protection of forests is another aim so that the consensus of various countries and their partnership results in fruitful results. 

Also, land use and sustainable rural progression are included in the normative value of the conference goals. The transformation is connected with the better consumption of resources so that development could be guaranteed with finance, trade, and investment for an entire infrastructure revolution. This would bring evident support for the indigenous people and better opportunities for their employment. Local communities would be empowered through the better restoration of the forest; therefore, a key role is expected from the conference’s actions.  

As far as its legal binding is concerned, the conference declared that it is a ‘non-legally binding’ assertion of beneficial principles that came out as a global consensus for protecting forests and facilitating climate safety (Sellheim, 2021). However, each country could set its regulations for controlling the emission depending on their economic activities to reduce climate impacts. 

Question 2

The Paris Agreement was a legally binding treaty as it was expected by several countries to reduce global warming and its effects on climate change (United Nations, 2022). The binding obligation asks the countries to lower global warming to 3 degrees in each region, at a minimum of 1.5 degrees. Seemingly, the pact wanted to strengthen the countries to combat climate change and alter their strategies at industrial levels for supporting them in their climate change efforts. 

If a state party to the Paris Agreement asked whether this decision impacted the obligations under the Paris agreement, the answer would be certainly yes. The country’s emission reduction target was to be revised as monitoring and evaluation of the industrial activities changed the final results each year pertinent to a decrease of 2 degrees. The greenhouse inventories and their review were to be made now and then so that assurance could be made whether the country’s efforts for adhering to the Paris Agreement are on the line. Great emphasis is to be put on less use of fossil fuels and more forestation in recent times since one of the major reasons for climate change has been rapid deforestation in the former decades. 

Since it is a legally binding agreement, the country has to make amendments. If the country is developed, it could allow financial assistance to developing or under-developed countries to reduce their emission and be legally bound by the agreement (Denchak, 2021). As the agreement is a global collaborative effort, transparency and accountability matter at each step, even if they point to the international agreement of a single country with other countries. 

The use of technology could be highly beneficial for sticking to the Paris agreement decision and being obliged under its proposed actions. For example, Uruguay changed its country’s policies on energy consumption. It relies on renewable energy sources up to 90% of the time, included in its 2030 agenda for the state (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, n.a.). 

Question 3

The judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda case could be legally binding under international law since the provision of international law bind all the holder together legally. As Urgenda’s actions were harmful to its citizens, the Dutch court believed it violated human rights obligations. Therefore, the national legal order must be sustained in line with the legal order. 

It could be argued under international law rules such as the ‘no harm rule’ that suggest that no one should be harmed and that the state has to do its part (Spier, 2020). By not fulfilling the duty, Urgenda could be legally bound to perform its activities that should reduce emissions, despite knowing n that it is exposing its citizens to danger (Urgenda-a, n.a.). The insertional protection of human rights was obvious under the court’s assertions since continuous evolution must be undertaken to better humanity. The norms and principles of international law provide a common guide for the common good of the entire society. The reduction of emission and saving the planet from climate change is crucial. Hence, the court’s judgment is legally binding as the country must do its part for the responsibility posed to it under the law. Urgenda’s contribution is reasoned well by the court. A decrease in emissions is justified for the partial obligation that the country has to fulfill not to be accountable in the future for harming other countries or even its people. 

Question 4

Human rights have given a new direction to the court’s decisions based on climate change. It is said that Urgenda’s case is the primary example where the human rights violation was reasoned by the court as Urgenda’s carelessness or ignorance was observed. The country was not working vigorously, as expected under the Paris Sargent, to reduce emissions, which had a likely direct effect on human lives. 

Such judgments could affect the development of new international norms as human rights have been prioritized recently. However, research and evidence from court cases also indicate that most human rights talks have been ignored in most important circumstances (Krommendijk, 2021). The cases like Urgenda’s present high-profile court decisions since national rights in environmental cases have to be scrutinized alongside international law and the benefits to human society simultaneously. 

Climate litigation has now been undertaken as a prime step for forcing the countries to ensure Paris Agreements’ rules for climate protection and reducing greenhouse emissions, particularly after Urgenda’s case. Several cases have been filed worldwide against the governments that are not doing enough in this direction (Urgenda-b, n.a.; The London School of Economics and Political Science, 2021). This modern wave of change could be referred to as ‘just transition’ litigation that proposes that climate change is here to stay and should be followed by every country as its top-most ranked obligation. The circumstances are linked with the financial risks, corporate duties, and industrial due diligence that could directly influence the financial facilitators like banks, relevant industry owners, and asset managers for justifying new developments in court rulings regarding international norms. The empowerment of citizens’ protection and a warranty of climate change policies would create new norms in international law. 

Question 5

The advisory opinion is taken as a defensive and diplomatic strategy to keep the peace for certain implications. The opinion adds weightage to the party’s argument, seeking it since it does not have a binding force but has gravity in climate litigation cases (Carreon, 2021). The clarification of the international law could be taken from advisory opinions as they suggest actions in the light of moral insinuations and authority. Thus, peace could be created that should not be put to the court for any trials, particularly in the International Court of Justice. 

As already mentioned, the advisory opinion is not legally binding but has a weightage; the normative value cannot be overstated in terms of judgments and opinions that need to be heard by the parties under dispute or confused about climate change actions. International law posits that specific standings cannot be taken regarding climate change for a country that seeks advisory opinion. The generalization level is quite high when advisory opinion is accepted as the issues could be addressed with negotiation to make them work collaboratively. Moreover, the advisory opinion would permit the international court of justice to accomplish its most vital role: clarifying and elaborating the applicable norms of broad-spectrum international law. 

The role of ICJ is central for addressing issues on political, social, economic, and environmental levels, for which advisory opinion could be valuable in mitigating confusion and generating worthwhile judgments. With advisory opinion, the final settlement to a conflict could be easily surfaced, even if it is on a global scale. Climate change is undoubtedly a global issue that might not be handled with astuteness in court since ICJ has a limited degree of influence in certain matters. Still, with advisory opinion, the matter would gain weightage. The most authoritative elucidation of international law could gain great primacy once an advisory opinion is mingled with judgments by the court lawyers.