News Excerpt:
On May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a significant advisory opinion on the obligations of states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning climate change mitigation.
More about the News:
This milestone opinion was sought by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), a group established in 2021 to address the unique vulnerabilities of small island nations to climate change.
Key Findings of the ITLOS Opinion
- The ITLOS took a bold step by accepting the COSIS request, aiming to clarify the obligations of states not party to the COSIS Agreement but bound by UNCLOS.
- The Tribunal unequivocally stated that under Article 194(1) of UNCLOS, states are obligated to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution from anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
- The Opinion also clarified that the release of carbon dioxide into the marine environment qualifies as a pollutant under Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS.
- This reinforces the scientific consensus that the ocean absorbs around a quarter of atmospheric CO2, leading to ocean acidification and contributing to global warming through excess heat absorption.
Implications for Global Climate Action
- This advisory opinion is particularly notable as it arrives ahead of anticipated advisory proceedings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on state obligations regarding climate change.
- By addressing the collective interest in climate change mitigation, the ITLOS opinion transcends the traditional bilateral approach to transboundary environmental harm, emphasizing a global responsibility.
- The Tribunal highlighted that necessary measures should align with the best available science and international agreements, including the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
Challenges and Limitations
- While the ITLOS Opinion underscores that states do not have unlimited discretion in addressing climate change, it stops short of defining concrete methodologies for assessing state mitigation actions.
- This generality echoes the symbolic but insufficient identification of obligations without stringent enforcement mechanisms.
- Environmental law expert noted that the real issue is not the existence of mitigation obligations but their specific content and applicable standards.
- They cited the Netherlands Supreme Court's Urgenda decision, which set a clear reduction target based on scientific data and legal standards.
- The ITLOS Opinion does not provide similar concrete targets or methodologies, and it acknowledges that measures must consider states' capacities and equity principles.
Conclusion:
Although advisory opinions lack binding legal force, they carry significant political weight as authoritative judicial statements. The ITLOS Opinion may influence international climate policies and encourage stronger collective action, especially for small island states facing dire climate threats.
The Opinion’s emphasis on due diligence and preventive measures could set a precedent for future climate litigation and policy-making, reinforcing the urgency and shared responsibility of combating climate change.
|
ITLOS
|
