At UN climate hearing, China rebuffs bid to clarify states’ legal obligations

 

Delegates attend International Court of Justice public hearings in an advisory opinion case that may become a reference point in defining countries' legal obligations to fight climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, Dec. 2 2024.

After years of resisting international pressure to meet financial obligations for combating climate change, China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases —according to public data — is seeking to avoid legal accountability at the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, in The Hague.

Since last week, more than 100 countries and organizations have presented arguments at the world’s highest court regarding states\’ responsibilities for climate change and whether high-emitting nations should be held accountable for the harm they have caused. Island nations and other climate-vulnerable countries — contributing little to global greenhouse gas emissions but losing territory to rising sea levels — are demanding legal accountability from polluting nations.

Amid concerns that the court might establish new legal grounds for climate-related litigation, Ma Xinmin, China’s representative, argued against liability for global warming.

“GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions do not constitute internationally wrongful acts under general international law,” Ma stated.

According to a report by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, more than 2,000 climate litigation cases have been filed worldwide, but most claimants face significant challenges in achieving favorable outcomes.

“If there was some finding in the advisory opinion that there was a liability that could spark litigation elsewhere presumably. "said Alice Hill, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former special assistant to President Barack Obama for climate change policies, in an interview with VOA.

Earlier this year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a landmark advisory opinion clarifying states’ legal obligations to address marine pollution caused by climate change. This case set a significant precedent for future decisions on international legal duties. China, however, argued in a written submission that the tribunal lacked the authority to issue advisory opinions, stating, “The Tribunal’s aforementioned reasoning is inconsistent with the rules of treaty interpretation.”

SEE ALSO:

In addition to China, the United States argued last week against new legal frameworks to deal with climate change obligations, marking a rare moment of alignment between the two geopolitical rivals on the global stage.

“Any other legal obligations related to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with states’ obligations under this treaty regime,” argued Margaret Taylor, a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department.

“Neither of them wants to have any new form of liability for emissions they may have caused.” said Hill of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Nikki Reisch, climate and energy director at the Center for International Environmental Law, stated in an email to VOA, “In its arguments before the ICJ, China has ultimately aligned itself with other major polluters,” she added.

China benefiting from the status quo

In 1992, when China was classified as a developing country under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, its historical emissions were about 41% of those of the EU. Today, China’s cumulative emissions have now caused more global warming than the 27 member states of the EU combined, according to a recent analysis by the U.K.-based climate website Carbon Brief.

Under the current framework, including the agreement reached at last month’s COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, China is not required to make financial contributions to offset the global costs of its pollution but is merely “encouraged” to do so. The country claims that since 2016, it has provided and mobilized more than $24 billion to help developing nations tackle climate challenges.

Reisch noted that the weaknesses of existing climate mechanisms have worked to China’s advantage.

“The decades-old climate negotiations are a space that China can navigate to advantage, and use in a running battle with the West,” Reisch said.

“That, while rightfully focused on the historical responsibility of the world’s largest cumulative emitters, all too conveniently obscures China’s own role in the climate crisis today.” Reisch said.

Ma Xinmin argued before the court that existing U.N. treaties should remain the cornerstone for determining states’ obligations.

“China hopes that the court will uphold the U.N. climate change negotiation mechanism as the primary channel for global climate governance,” Ma said.

Dean Baker, senior economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted that China\’s emissions have peaked and are expected to decline in the coming years. He also highlighted the country is doing an enormous amount in terms of rapidly switching to electric vehicles and ramping up clean energy production.

"However, it does not want to tie itself to international commitments, even though it is likely to exceed any plausible green standards," Baker told VOA in an email.

 

By：VOA