The Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, Nikki Reisch is our guest on the show this month. Niki talks about the advisory opinion expected this year from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences for governments concerning climate change. The pending opinion comes on the back of two weeks of climate hearings in The Hague in December. In the largest case in its history, the ICJ heard from almost 100 countries and communities who delivered their testimonies on climate change. Nikki was there and described the atmosphere in the court as hugely moving: “The countries that are literally losing ground to the ravages of climate change showed time and again, through this process, that they not only have the moral high-ground, but the legal high-ground.” The case at the ICJ was led by the Pacific Island of Vanuatu and brought about as a result of the efforts of twenty-seven law students from the University of the South Pacific. Pacific island communities are among those on the frontline of climate change, once living in harmony with the ocean, now threatened by rising sea levels caused largely by warming global temperatures, caused largely as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Kicking off proceedings, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and environment, Mr. Ralph Regenvanu said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with, “a handful of readily identifiable states,” that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts. Nikki says there was a very clarion call from countries around the world to reject efforts to give polluters a free pass and to instead carve out their conduct from long-standing fundamental principles of international law, saying the push, “was really resounding.” According to Nikki: “The whole world knows what caused this crisis and which countries bear the most responsibility and they’re simply asking for the court to affirm that, yes indeed, that conduct was in violation of legal obligations then and now, and that there is a duty to remedy and repair that harm.” A stark division emerged during the two weeks at the ICJ, during which countries like the US, Britain, Germany and France were heavily criticised for their stance and accused of talking down ambitious climate action. For example - the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter, the US, its representative at the talks Margaret Taylor - its then legal adviser at the state department - said the current UN climate change regime, “embodies the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change,” adding, “any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime.” She was talking about treaties agreed at UN climate change talks, known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), and the historic agreement reached by states in 2015, known as the Paris Agreement. That’s when states pledged to keep the warming of the planet below 1.5°C degrees. And although, since coming into his second term in office, in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, Nikki argues that the issue at stake at the ICJ goes well beyond the Paris Agreement: “It’s important to clarify that countries’ legal obligations to prevent, minimise and remedy that impacts of climate change neither starts nor ends with the Paris Agreement. Those agreements (COP agreements), they were adopted under the backdrop of human rights law and long-standing international law. One of the fundamental tenants of inter-state relations in respect of sovereignty is that one country can’t undertake activities or allow activities on its territory that would harm another. And that it was, in fact, in response to those long-standing principles, not in spite of them or to replace or displace them, that the climate treaties were agreed. But in fact, nothing in those treaties cuts off the application of those laws or suggests that they replace or supplant existing obligations.” Ultimately, Nikki believes that what was heard at the ICJ hearings will offer huge hope: “The knowledge that people can unite together, to not only stand up against big polluters and powers with vested interest, but actually influence the course of history and use the law for justice, not for advantage and self-interest. And I think that’s really part of what makes this a watershed moment for human rights, climate justice and accountability.” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.
