Nations have a duty to address climate change, and their actions must be based on the best available science.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the consensus of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the court responsible for upholding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The tribunal\u2019s panel of 21 judges unanimously declared in its May 2024 decision<\/a> that UNCLOS signatory states\u2014a list of 169 members including Canada, the European Union, and the majority of the world\u2019s national governments\u2014cannot simply abide by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Instead, they must take \u201call necessary measures\u201d<\/a> to prevent, reduce, and control greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n ITLOS\u2019s advisory opinion<\/a>\u2014the first such document issued by an international court\u2014states that UNCLOS signatories are legally obligated to address climate change, which represents an existential threat to the oceans and humankind.<\/p>\n The advisory opinion is the result of a case brought to the court<\/a> by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), a coalition representing nine Caribbean and Pacific Islands nations. The government of Antigua and Barbuda spearheaded the effort.<\/p>\n In presenting the advisory opinion at the ITLOS office in Hamburg, Germany, in May 2024, ITLOS president Tomas Heidar said the court anchored its decision in the latest climate science, recognizing the \u201cauthoritative assessments\u201d put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<\/p>\n Nikki Reisch, the energy and climate program director at the US-based Center for International Environmental Law, welcomes the \u201clucid and succinct\u201d way the report was written. By issuing such direct advice, she says, the court quashed attempts by some UNCLOS member states to suggest that there is uncertainty around the science of climate change. The advisory opinion, she says, lays to rest \u201cany doubt that there is enough scientific certainty to \u2026 define what states must do and refrain from doing.\u201d<\/p>\n Sarah Cooley, the director of climate science at the US-based nonprofit Ocean Conservancy and a lead chapter author of a recent IPCC report, spoke as an expert witness for COSIS during the hearing. She says she felt that her role in communicating climate science had succeeded.<\/p>\n \u201cBeing an American, I\u2019ve seen all sorts and stripes of climate science denial, and it was so refreshing to see this international tribunal was really accepting the IPCC\u2019s products as a legitimate, cutting-edge synthesis of what we know about climate science,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n Beyond recognizing the causes and consequences of climate change, the tribunal laid out several obligations for UNCLOS member states. The court stressed that wealthier nations must shoulder a bigger portion of the burden of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, opening the door for further discussions about what constitutes a fair share<\/a>. Developing states, the 21-judge panel wrote, must also be supported with funding and technical assistance.<\/p>\n Shobha Maharaj, the science director of the Hawai\u2018i-based reforestation company Terraformation and the lead chapter author of a recent IPCC report, gave evidence on behalf of COSIS during the proceedings. Maharaj hopes the court\u2019s decision will bear tangible results. A good start, she says, would be to see small island states get better access to the data\u00a0from the most advanced climate models, which are run by wealthy nations.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of the most vulnerable places and peoples in the world do not have the right data to make projections, which are needed to inform their adaptation and resilience planning,\u201d says Maharaj. \u201cIt\u2019s almost like flying blind.\u201d<\/p>\n To determine the responsibilities of UNCLOS member states, the court considered the consequences of climate change on human populations and the natural world. Member states, the tribunal said, must protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as the habitats of depleted, threatened, and endangered species, from climate change and ocean acidification.<\/p>\n The tribunal\u2019s advisory opinion is not legally binding, but Reisch expects it will be referenced in future climate change\u2013related lawsuits. ITLOS\u2019s decision is also expected to encourage states to submit more ambitious national emission pledges<\/a> during the next round of climate talks in Azerbaijan<\/a> in November 2024, says Isabela Keuschnigg, a legal officer at Opportunity Green, a UK-based NGO that submitted evidence to the tribunal.<\/p>\n Although ITLOS is the first international court to render an opinion on the duty member states have to address climate change, two other prominent courts\u2014the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice\u2014are weighing similar cases.<\/em> ITLOS\u2019s approach, says Reisch, \u201csends a very strong signal to [these] two courts about the starting point in terms of being guided by science and helping to define what the law requires.\u201d<\/p>\n Maharaj, who has since contributed expert scientific input to the other two international courts, says giving evidence to the tribunal was \u201cone of the most gratifying experiences\u201d in her professional life.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve been looking for hope for some time,\u201d Maharaj says. The court\u2019s decision gives her hope that \u201cscience plus law can actually be used as a catalyst to move things forward a bit faster.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nations have a duty to address climate change, and their actions must be based on the best available science. That\u2019s the consensus of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the court responsible for upholding the United <\/p>\n