The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has recently defined greenhouse gas emissions as a form of marine pollution under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This definition came as part of a landmark advisory opinion that was released on Tuesday.
The opinion comes in response to inquiries by countries such as Antigua, Barbuda, Tuvalu, and the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change (COSIS). The Tribunal has ruled that nations are legally compelled to put a limit on emissions as part of their duty to preserve the marine ecosystem.
ITLOS has underscored the urgent need to limit global temperature rise to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. This obligation extends beyond simple compliance with the Paris Climate Accords. Louise Fournier, Legal Counsel for Climate Justice and Liability at Greenpeace International, commends the opinion as a vital step in the advancement of international environmental law, highlighting the danger climate change poses to human rights.
Smaller island states, which are being significantly impacted by climate change despite their limited contribution to it, led the call for legal clarity on state obligations. COSIS, established in 2021, brought this query to the Hamburg-based tribunal to outline nations’ responsibilities under international law towards safeguarding marine ecosystems.
The ITLOS advisory opinion confirms the need for enhanced climate action, suggesting that nations should strive for action beyond the Paris Agreement. It highlights the need for nations, particularly those historically responsible for climate change, to adopt stronger measures of emission reduction. The opinion recognises the possibility that climate commitments might need to be enforced. Laura Meller of Greenpeace Nordic emphasised the utmost importance of preserving oceans for global sustainability, stressing the need for coordinated efforts to minimise the impacts of climate change.
The impact of the advisory opinion extends beyond the field of law and into global climate policy and corporate practices. As outlined by Lea Main-Klingst, a lawyer at ClientEarth, the opinion has the potential to drive nations with large carbon footprints to enhance their commitments to climate change.
Even though the advisory opinion is not legally binding, it could influence international and domestic law on climate change as there are 169 countries that are party to the UN Convention.
This advisory opinion joins a range of legal efforts globally to openly tackle the climate crisis. Legal bodies, from the European Court of Human Rights to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, are frequently being asked to clarify state obligations in response to mitigating climate change. The Council of Europe’s 46 member states have been found to have a legal obligation to protect citizens from the harmful effects of climate change back in April.
It is expected that as the impacts of climate change advance, courts around the world will refer to advisory opinions like this one to shape their climate jurisprudence.