How can countries be held accountable for staying within the new legal climate target of 1.5°C?

Global emissions must peak this year to remain within 1.5°C of global temperature rise since pre-industrial levels. This means that starting now, countries will have to emit less greenhouse gases. Emissions also need to be Reduce it in half by 2030 To prevent the worst effects of climate change.

For many countries, 1.5°C is considered a survival standard. At that temperature, small island states in particular Risk of becoming uninhabitable Due to rising sea levels, ecosystem loss, water insecurity, infrastructure destruction, and the collapse of livelihoods.

To protect its future, Vanuatu and 17 other countries spent six years campaigning to persuade the UN system’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, to weigh in on whether countries have specific legal obligations when it comes to climate change. This year, the court agreed to do so, and Commitments are strictWhich means that countries are required to use all available means to prevent significant damage to the climate system.

Because the Court’s advisory opinion is an expression of existing law and legal obligations (and not a binding legal decision in itself), it must be given legal effect through national legislation, climate-related litigation, and international treaties and agreements. In other words, you must survive.

My research identifies how to keep fatwa alive through several methods And holding states accountable Because it fails to protect the climate system

Cop30, the UN climate summit to be held in Brazil in November, is the first opportunity to hold countries to account for their collective failure to stay within the 1.5°C limit in their national 2025 pledges.

In my country Recent paperI summarize which countries are meeting their climate change commitments and which are not, and what can be done about it.

Time is running out but climate diplomacy can be slow. Under the Paris Agreement A legally binding international treaty on climate change Approved by states in 2015 Limit global warming to well below 2°C And continue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Since then, many countries have urged at each annual UN climate summit that the 1.5°C target be the maximum temperature increase. After years of negotiations, the International Court of Justice made clear that 1.5°C is the legal target of the Paris Agreement. This hinges on the fact that the Paris Agreement uses a science-based approach, so that decisions are made according to the best science available today. Currently, this science indicates that A A rise in temperature of two degrees Celsius would be catastrophic.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are plans developed by each country that outline how they will reduce their emissions (in order to collectively meet the temperature target set in the Paris Agreement) and Adaptation to climate change. The Court’s ruling made clear that countries are not only obligated to make NDCs, but these contributions also need to represent the highest possible ambition of the country.

The court also made clear that all NDCs need, by law, to add up to enough emission reductions globally to meet the 1.5°C target. This could be used to press for more ambitious pledges among states that claim to support the interests of the most vulnerable states.

Each country must update its Nationally Determined Contributions every five years. Each one needs to be more ambitious than the previous one. The last round of nationally determined contributions was insufficient. Even if it were fully implemented, it would do so Limit global warming to only 2.6 degrees Celsius He increases. This year, after the deadline for submitting NDCs was extended, only about 30% of countries submitted new NDCs. This covers less than a third of global emissions.

It found that of the ten SIDS-friendly countries, only one – the UK – introduced its new NDC, which is In line with 1.5 degrees Celsius. Four of these countries – Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand – have submitted their new NDCs Not on track to meet the temperature target. three No new NDC submitted Not at all – China, India and the European Union – despite making high-level political statements.

Seven of these small island friends (and the European Union) are required to provide climate finance to developing countries under the Paris Agreement. All of these countries spend more public money on the fossil fuel industry than on financing climate change mitigation and adaptation at the international level.

According to the International Court, subsidizing fossil fuels may constitute an internationally wrongful act, which constitutes a violation of the obligation to protect the climate system from significant harm. In 2022, the UK spent nearly 14 times more on fossil fuel subsidies than it did on international climate finance.

Australia spent more than six times that amount. France and New Zealand spent more than twice that amount. Japan spent nearly twice that amount. Removing fossil fuel subsidies would free up much-needed financial resources Targeting people most in needEspecially in light of the seriousness of the situation.

Other legal methods

Other than Cop30, there are other legal avenues. The first strategic decision is whether to bring a case before domestic or international courts. For example, in Canada, Two councils of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation took the government to court For failing to fulfill its international obligations to reduce emissions, citing the International Court of Justice.

At the international level, a highly polluted country may be brought before international legal courts by another country. In 2019, Gambia has filed a lawsuit against Myanmar of genocide because of the universal legal nature of the obligation to prevent genocide. Likewise, one country can sue another country on climate-related legal grounds.

As the 1.5°C window closes, Cop30 and the courts must become a dual sphere of action, where creativity, strategy and law converge to make climate justice actionable, not aspirational.

Concrete diplomatic gains in Belém could include a set of ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and operational guidance to launch the Fund to respond to the challenges of climate change. Loss and damageIn addition to making bold commitments to climate finance, the work cannot end in the negotiating halls. It must continue beyond COP30 to turn pledges into action.

This article was republished from Conversation Under Creative Commons license. Read Original article.