Nikki Reisch

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 Janu