US, Other Major Emitters Reject Responsibility For Climate Harm During Landmark Climate Justice Hearings

As what is projected to be the hottest year in recorded history draws to a close, the world’s top court heard this week from countries like the United States, Canada, China, and Russia, that are among the biggest emitters of planet-heating greenhouse gases causing devastating harm to communities around the globe and threatening the survival of low-lying small island nations. Yet while countries on the frontlines of the climate emergency pleaded for legal accountability and justice, the major emitting states argued that climate change is a collective action problem that can only be addressed through the Paris Agreement framework and that no single state or group of states can be held legally responsible.

These arguments were presented to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is currently holding a two-week hearing on the questions of states’ responsibilities to prevent and mitigate climate harms under international law, and the legal consequences for breaching their obligations. The court will then issue a forthcoming advisory opinion on the matter, expected later in 2025, that will help clarify the scope of countries’ international legal obligations regarding climate change and that could lay a foundation for bolstering climate action and accountability.

During the first week of the hearings, the court heard from both small island states and developing nations as well as major industrialized countries. On Wednesday, December 4, the United States – the world’s largest historical greenhouse gas emitter (accounting for roughly 20% of historical emissions) and largest oil and gas producer – presented its oral statement. Although the US acknowledged the climate crisis as “one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced” that demands “urgent action in this critical decade”, the country’s statement dismissed its own legal responsibility, including for historical emissions, and argued that voluntary contributions under the Paris Agreement are the only viable solution to the global climate problem.

“The global climate crisis can be solved only through international cooperation,” Margaret Taylor, legal adviser to the US State Department, told the court. She argued that the Paris Agreement (established in 2015) provides for that cooperative and flexible arrangement, and while the agreement requires state parties to submit emissions reduction pledges, or “NDCs” (nationally determined contributions), states are not obligated to actually fulfill them. “A party does not breach the agreement if it fails to achieve its NDC,” Taylor submitted. She further argued that international human rights law cannot obligate states to reduce emissions, and that specific states cannot be held legally accountable for climate change given challenges in establishing precise causation.

“An advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate whether individual states or groups of states have violated obligations pertaining to climate change in the past or bear responsibility for reparations,” Taylor told the court in an attempted evasion of the US’s outsized historical responsibility for carbon emissions.

Outrage at US position

 Climate justice advocates, including legal experts and youth campaigners, swiftly condemned the US position.

“The United States’ statement on climate obligations at the International Court of Justice is disgraceful. As one of the world’s major emitters and a key profiteer of the climate crisis, denying responsibility is both morally bankrupt and deeply harmful,” Noemi Zenk-Agyei, campaigner with World Youth for Climate Justice, said in a statement.  

Trina Chiemi, a 27-year-old US citizen and co-founder of FACE Intergenerational Justice, slammed the US presentation as a “betrayal to the world’s youth and our futures.”

“The US’s position is not only disingenuous, it is disrespectful to the millions whose lives and livelihoods are on the line, to the communities and nations that face the prospect of being washed away, and to those bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not create,” said Nikki Reisch, climate and energy program director at the Center for International Environmental Law.

Ralph Regenvanu, special envoy for climate change and environment for the Republic of Vanuatu, the small Pacific Island nation that spearheaded the initiative to seek an advisory opinion on climate from the ICJ, said he was “very disappointed” by the US statement to the court. “Science shows the US has been responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change, which is causing massive injury to small countries like Vanuatu,” he told Climate in the Courts.

While the US and other major polluting countries like Canada argued that global climate treaties, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, provide the “best hope” for responding to the climate crisis, Vanuatu and other climate-vulnerable countries say major emitting parties to these treaties have so far failed to deliver on their promises.

“We are frustrated by the lack of climate action coming out of the UNFCCC regime,” Regenvanu said. “We are looking for mechanisms beyond just the UNFCCC regime. This is why we are at the ICJ.”

 “We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand”

The US statement pointing to the Paris Agreement as the “best hope” ironically comes as President-elect Donald Trump has said he intends to once again pull the US out of the global accord. There is also speculation that, under Trump, the US may even try to exit the UNFCCC altogether, as recommended in the Project 2025 policy blueprint. Trump himself is a climate denier who rejects the unequivocal scientific consensus on climate change and its harmful impacts.   

“As sea levels rise and the impacts of climate change intensify, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand,” Regenvau said in a statement. “Climate change is an existential threat that transcends borders, affecting all nations regardless of political ideology or geographic location.”

“As we have argued before the Court, the conduct responsible for climate change is not just irresponsible—it is unlawful under a range of international obligations, including those under the law of the sea, human rights law, and environmental law,” Regenvanu added.

Vanuatu and other vulnerable frontline states argued that major polluters must be held accountable for the harm they cause and that legal consequences entail full reparations.

“Climate-vulnerable nations are not just calling for compensation, but for structural redress. They are calling for debt relief. They are calling for eco restoration. They are asking states to phase out fossil fuels, asking states not to rely on false solutions like geoengineering that risk aggravating the harm,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney in the climate and energy program at CIEL, said at a December 6 media briefing.

While the court’s advisory opinion is non-binding and will not itself bring about accountability and redress, it may help strengthen the negotiating positions of vulnerable countries in the UNFCCC and provide a boost to climate accountability lawsuits against governments and polluting corporations around the world.

“Will it in and of itself be the panacea? No. But it will be a very important contribution. It will be a strong framework for accountability and redress which then litigators, campaigners, educators, all of us together can push to put pressure on these countries,” Chowdhury said.

“If we get a favorable and forward-looking advisory opinion that does state it is unlawful to not reduce emissions, we believe this will empower the hundreds of cases of [climate] litigation that are already on track, and will inspire many more, against fossil fuel companies, against states, at all levels,” Regenvanu told Climate in the Courts. “And I think that is something that will accelerate climate action.”