The Cop29 agreement failed island states. Now the UN’s top court must act on climate harm

The UN climate conference in Baku has ended with an agreement for $300bn annually, by 2035, to be provided in global finance to help less wealthy countries develop clean economies and adapt to damage from climate change. Estimates by independent economists have said the need will approach $1.3tn annually by 2030. The $1.3tn was acknowledged in the deal in Baku, but there were no firm commitments to reach that figure. The difference of $1tr each year sounds absurd, but is true.

This is why we brought a climate change case to the international court of justice (ICJ), to seek an advisory opinion on climate obligations. Hearings on the case begin next week in The Hague and the shortcomings of the Cop29 agreement make this unprecedented action – to clarify the legal obligations of states under international law in respect of climate change and the legal consequences for breaches – even more urgent.

All small island states have been struck by superstorms whose impacts were magnified by climate change. In Vanuatu, we can lose half of our GDP each time a severe cyclone strikes, and we have had five severe cyclones in the past three years. The only obvious pathway we have to fund recovery efforts is to borrow from international lenders and increase our foreign debt.

Climate change disasters account for about 40% of the Bahamas’ current debt load. Dominica lost 226% of its GDP due to Hurricane Maria in 2017 and, after funding its recovery through international loans, its total debt reportedly increased to 98% of its GDP two years later.

This is a problem that will only grow worse. Of the 60 countries eligible for financial support from the International Monetary Fund’s poverty reduction and growth trust, 55 were assessed by the United Nations as having a high environmental vulnerability. The IMF estimated this month that global public debt would exceed $100tn by the end of this year, accounting for 93% of the world’s GDP.

And yet, according to the October 2024 report from the United Nations Environmental Programme, global greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase in 2023, with the G20 countries (excluding the African Union) responsible for 77% of all emissions. In comparison, the 47 least developed countries combined were responsible for just 3%.

As Samoan minister Cedric Schuster noted at the UN talks: “We have found ourselves continuously insulted by the lack of inclusion, our calls are being ignored. Our vulnerable countries are in a very different boat compared to the developed countries … We cannot just sail off into the sunset. We are literally sinking.”

No country is on track to reduce emissions so that we can hold global warming to 1.5C and only 10 countries are projected to come close. The UN’s annual climate change talks still do not provide an answer. The commitments made in Baku are far from enough. They were never going to be enough. And even then, based on our experience with such pledges in the past, we know they will not be fulfilled.

The limitations of the UN process motivate our ICJ case, which will begin on 2 December. We are part of a large coalition of UN member states seeking an advisory opinion to clarify the legal obligations – obligations which we argue have existed and been disregarded for too long. This would strengthen the Paris agreement framework, and obligations to finance adaptation and mitigation in vulnerable countries and to address loss and damage.

We are also asking the court to clarify that obligations from other sources of international law – including human rights, general principles of international law and customary international law, which apply to all states independently of their treaty ratifications – are also applicable.

In this way, the advisory opinion can ensure that climate action and commitments are grounded in the rule of law, meaning states can be held responsible and accountable for their failures to adequately address climate change. This could help close the glaring gaps in climate finance that the UN talks once again left unresolved.

The ICJ advisory opinion can help set a moral compass for UN member states to address their climate change obligations. After all, no country, no matter how wealthy, can borrow its way out of this storm.

Cover photo: By The Guardian