Vanuatu's climate win is a climactic victory

The adoption by consensus of the resolution seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on central questions of responsibility and obligations of climate change is a landmark diplomatic victory not just for Vanuatu and other Pacific island states, but also for those countries bearing an inordinate burden for the climate ‘sins’ of richer nations. Though non-binding, the advisory opinion will shape climate negotiations, international climate law and domestic climate policy. It will address the question of the obligations countries have, as per international law, to take climate action, legal implications of these obligations on countries that have ’caused significant harm to the climate system’, especially with regard to vulnerable countries like small island states.

The advisory could provide clarity on the question of differentiation, as well as reaffirm the current state of affairs pertaining to climate support. The court will take nearly two years to provide an advisory. There is a real danger countries will use this period to stall on stepping-up climate action and providing support, particularly financial. Because the advisory is expected to provide guidance on responsibility, it will impact negotiations on the issue of expanding the donor base to include developing countries that are in a position to contribute. Already a contentious issue, the donor base question will affect the loss and damage (L&D) funding negotiations. This will, in turn, adversely affect the capacity to restrict temperature rise to 1.5° C.

Countries should not slow down their pace of climate action. At the same time, the decision to seek the court’s advice must not be used to limit financial and other support to developing countries.