*

ICJ opinion could influence global climate litigation

*

Rich countries say existing U.N. climate treaties should

guide

responsibilities

*

Global South and small island states seek robust measures

to

curb emissions

By Stephanie van den Berg

THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations'

highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is

likely to determine the course of future climate action across

the world.

Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15

judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is

legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political

weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it,

legal experts say.

"The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in

the history of the court because it clarifies international law

obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the

survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law

professor.

In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also

known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small

island states that face an existential threat from rising sea

levels.

In all, over a hundred states and international

organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N.

General Assembly had asked the judges to consider.

They were: what are countries' obligations under

international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas

emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries

that harm the climate system?

Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that

existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement,

which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding

their responsibilities.

Developing nations and small island states argued for

stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb

emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming

greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.

PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION

In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than

190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global

warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global

greenhouse gas emissions.

Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report,"

which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate

change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current

climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C

(5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to

account, climate-related litigation has intensified, with nearly

3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June

figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate

Change and the Environment.

So far, the results have been mixed.

A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian

farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers

and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a

decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur

similar lawsuits.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human

Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and

Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its

members must cooperate to tackle climate change.

Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a

turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory,

it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states

have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold.

"The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by

major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of

international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law

students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South

Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ.

Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ

ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.

"This opinion is applying binding international law, which

countries have already committed to. National and regional

courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority

and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under

their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the

Center for International Environmental Law, said.

The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300

GMT).