SUNIL DOWARKASING
Pre-Election commitment – distilling high hopes
The new government in Mauritius, which assumed office on November 11, 2024, consistently emphasized its commitment to prioritizing environmental protection and climate action throughout its electoral campaign. The protection of the environment and fighting climate change were central to the political agenda of the ruling coalition.
Their strong pre-election commitment to enshrining the right to protect the environment in the country’s constitution marked a significant step toward recognizing climate change and environmental conservation as fundamental rights for its citizens.
Mauritius moves out of the ICJ Climate
Case- killing the hopes in days
However, the new government decision to withdraw from the landmark legal hearing in The Hague (December 5 to 13, 2024) undermines their commitment to address climate change. The ICJ hearing aims to hold wealthy high-emission countries accountable for using the Paris Agreement and other climate treaties to deflect their efforts in combating global warming. It is important to remember that Mauritius is among the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. As a small island nation, it faces significant risks from rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other climate-related challenges that threaten its ecosystems, economy, and vulnerable communities.
It is truly baffling how the government of a country so severely impacted by climate change could miss such a golden opportunity to present its case to the international community. Unbelievable!
Why did 98 Countries Turn to the International Court of Justice?
After decades of tireless advocacy, 98 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations have turned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to seek clarity on the legal obligations of countries to combat climate change and the consequences for failing to act when “significant harm” is caused.
These nations have brought their fight to The Hague, frustrated by years of attending international climate summits, such as the COP meetings, only to face repeated disappointments and inaction while the livelihood of the inhabitants of these countries are constantly being threatened.
The culprits of global warming !
It is well-established that the 20 healthiest economies, represented in the G20 caucus, account for 77–83% of global carbon emissions and bear significant responsibility for global warming. Many of these nations are also historically accountable for substantial emissions over time.
Despite their significant role in driving climate change, the G20 has devoted relatively limited attention to this urgent issue. Since 2009, the group has made only 75 commitments related to climate change, placing it 11th among their stated priorities. This highlights a troubling disconnect between their responsibility and their action in addressing the climate crisis. It is against these countries that Pacific and Caribbean nations, alongside Vanuatu, have sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify states’ legal obligations to protect people from the impacts of climate damage.
Mauritius has turned its back on its responsibility to join this global movement against global warming, instead choosing to align itself with OPEC countries. This is a deeply disappointing and regrettable decision.
Global Climate Accountability is insufficient
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change is a landmark accord designed to ensure countries uphold their climate responsibilities and remain accountable. It should not be misused as a tool to dilute these obligations. The agreement legally binds nations to adopt and implement policies and actions—both short-term and long-term—that align with the 1.5°C temperature limit critical to mitigating climate change.
However, the G20 nations, despite their pivotal role, have announced national climate plans (NDCs) with emissions-reduction targets that frequently fall short of meeting the 1.5°C objective. This gap highlights the urgent need for stronger commitments and more ambitious actions from the G20 countries to address the climate crisis effectively.
Seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states to address climate change, and the legal consequences of failing to fulfil these obligations, has the potential to significantly alter the trajectory of global climate action.
Such a ruling could clarify the international responsibilities of the big polluters, strengthen accountability, and drive more ambitious efforts to combat the climate crisis.
How did the ICJ case start?
This initiative stems from a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in March 2023, which was inspired by efforts led by Vanuatu, a small island state disproportionately affected by climate change.
The request focuses on two key questions:
- What are the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system?
- What are the legal consequences for states whose actions or inactions contribute significantly to climate harm, particularly affecting vulnerable nations like small island states?
The case highlights the global need for clarity on the legal framework governing climate responsibility and accountability, particularly for countries historically responsible for high greenhouse gas emissions. While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are non-binding, they can serve as authoritative interpretations of international law, influencing global climate policies and future legal disputes.
The submission of Mauritius dated 15th August 2024
Mauritius submitted a comprehensive set of written comments on the obligations of polluting states on climate change.These comments were detailed in a 78-page document and were supported by an expert report from Dr. James E. Hansen, who has been a prominent figure in climate science for over forty years. Dr. Hansen is known for his work on the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming, particularly through his influential testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1988. Below are some extracts from the submission mentioned above.
Quote 1
“The Republic of Mauritius (“Mauritius”) submits these Written Comments on the Written Statements filed by other participants in the matter of the request for an Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 30 May 2024.
The urgent and catastrophic risk posed by climate change is underscored by the unprecedented participation in these proceedings…”
Quote 2
In these Written Comments, Mauritius will address the following nine issues with respect to the first question
– the obligations of States under international law
– in response to the Written Statements filed by other participants:
- the obligation to take into account the best available science;
- the Paris Agreement, which emphasises the urgent need to close the gap between what is required and what has been achieved so far;
- the obligation of due diligence, in particular having regard to: i)the 1.5°C temperature goal; ii) the requirement for the “highest possible ambition” and “progression” (Article 4(3) of the Paris Agreement); iii) Nationally Determined Contributions (“NDCs”); and iv) environmental impact assessment;
- the obligation to make urgent and deep reductions in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, including the immediate need to transition away from fossil fuels;
- the obligation to give effect to principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (“CBDRRC”);
- the obligation to make available accessible, fair and transparent climate finance for developing countries;
- the obligation to address adaptation, particularly for developing States and those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including Small Island Developing States (“SIDS”);
- the obligations on States to protect human rights, based on the principle of systemic integration; and
- the role of customary international law obligations to supplement (and not being superseded by) multilateral treaties in the field of climate protection, including the duties of: i) prevention; ii) cooperation; and iii) precaution.
Quote 3 from Jensen’s report
“I have been asked to provide this Expert Report in support of the written submissions made by the Republic of Mauritius in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change.”…. The position adopted by Mauritius is that States have an overarching obligation under international law “to effect deep, rapid and sustained reductions of GHG emissions, including urgently reducing and phasing out the use of fossil fuels.” From a scientific perspective, I fully support the arguments of Mauritius…”
The withdrawal of Mauritius from the ICJ Hearing is unacceptable – loss of its credibility
Participating in the ICJ hearing could have bolstered the nation’s advocacy on the global stage, highlighting the unique challenges faced by a small island developing state and holding major emitters accountable for their contributions to climate change and our miseries.
Such a decision also undermines Mauritius’s long-term climate security and moral authority in international negotiations and shirks its responsibilities in the fight against climate change as well as harming the country’s reputation on the international stage, especially among SIDS countries advocating for stronger climate action.
It is a major setback for the global climate movement, potentially weakening collective efforts to address climate change through legal and diplomatic channels.
SHAME.
