Global Pushback Against Climate Change Legal Obligations: US and Saudi Arabia Lead Resistance at Landmark Hearing

The US, Saudi Arabia, and other wealthy nations have pushed back against a global effort to clarify states’ legal obligations to address climate change at a landmark legal hearing in The Hague this week. These countries, which are major emitters of planet-heating gases, have cited existing treaties such as the Paris Agreement to avoid additional pressure to ramp up their climate action.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing has drawn criticism from top climate diplomats and advocates who argue that international agreements do not limit state accountability for climate change. The two-week hearing follows years of campaigning by a group of law students from Pacific nations and diplomatic efforts led by the island state of Vanuatu.

The UN General Assembly resolution last year called on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations regarding climate change and the consequences of failing to address it. While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not binding, they clarify existing law and serve as authoritative documents in future climate litigation and international negotiations.

A total of 98 states, along with institutions like OPEC, are presenting oral submissions at the court. The hearing has highlighted a divide between wealthy nations with high historical emissions and vulnerable nations disproportionately affected by climate change.

The United States, which does not fully recognize the ICJ’s authority, argued that existing legal frameworks like the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement adequately address climate change. However, critics, including Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, argue that the Paris Agreement should not be used to dilute countries’ climate responsibilities.

Many countries believe that legal obligations should extend beyond existing climate agreements and include principles of international law like due diligence and the duty to prevent harm. The relevance of human rights in the context of climate change has also been debated, with disagreements over the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

The ICJ hearing has also touched on the role of fossil fuel-producing countries in addressing climate change. While some countries argue that their obligations are limited to the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, others stress the need to go beyond these commitments to protect the environment and prevent harm.

The hearing continues until December 13, with more countries, including the UK, set to present their arguments. The outcome of the ICJ’s advisory opinion could have significant implications for future climate action and accountability on a global scale.