On December 10, 2024, the Republic of Nauru presented its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking legal clarity on states' obligations under international law to address the global climate crisis. Represented by Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade Hon. Lionel Rouwen Aingimea and Legal Counsel Mr. Eirik Bjorge, Nauru emphasized the existential threats that climate change poses to small island developing states (SIDS), particularly concerning their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the fundamental human right to self-determination.
Key Legal Points Presented by Nauru
- Obligation to Prevent Transboundary Harm: Nauru invoked the principle established in the Corfu Channel case, asserting that states must not allow their territory to be used in ways that cause harm to other states. This principle applies universally, including in the context of climate change. Nauru argued that states contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions are violating this principle by causing transboundary harm that disproportionately affects SIDS.
- Due Diligence Standards: Nauru emphasized that international law requires states to exercise stringent due diligence in mitigating environmental harm. Drawing on precedents such as the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and the COSIS Advisory Opinion, Nauru argued that major emitters must take all necessary measures to prevent harm caused by their emissions, including complying with scientific recommendations on emission reductions.
- Protection of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: Rising sea levels caused by climate change threaten Nauru's territorial integrity and sovereignty, core principles under international law. Nauru's submission stated, "Rising sea levels pose severe threats that violate our right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity, and the right of our people not to 'be deprived of its own means of subsistence.'"
- Right to Self-Determination: Nauru asserted that climate change undermines the right to self-determination, enshrined in Article 1 of the International Covenants on Human Rights. By compromising the habitability of Nauru's land and potentially displacing its people, climate change infringes upon this fundamental right. Minister Aingimea noted, "Climate change is the single most destructive threat to the security and to the well-being of our population."
- Legal Obligations Beyond Treaties: Nauru argued that obligations under general international law are not superseded by treaty frameworks like the Paris Agreement. Instead, these treaties complement existing obligations. Nauru called on the ICJ to confirm that states cannot evade their responsibilities under general international law by relying solely on treaty mechanisms.
Context and Implications
The ICJ proceedings, running from December 2 to 13, 2024, are the largest in the Court's history, with oral submissions from a record 98 states and 12 intergovernmental organizations. These proceedings stem from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 77/276, adopted on March 29, 2023, which requests the ICJ to address pivotal questions regarding states' obligations to protect the climate system for present and future generations and the legal consequences for states whose actions or omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system.
Nauru's proactive stance underscores the urgent need for legal clarity and accountability in addressing climate change, particularly for vulnerable nations facing existential threats. The ICJ's advisory opinion, expected in 2025, is anticipated to shape international climate governance by providing legal guidance on states' obligations under international law and outlining the consequences of failing to act. This decision is expected to set a transformative precedent, reinforcing the legal framework for holding states accountable and addressing the climate crisis through international law.
