Shiva Gounden is one of the activists from the Australia-Pacific region who has traveled to The Hague these days to follow the hearings of the International Court of Justice in the largest climate justice case to date. The judges of the UN Court will have to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations and responsibilities of countries in the climate emergency at the request of the Government of Vanuatu, a small Pacific archipelago that is being one of the places most affected by cyclones, rise of sea level, forced relocations of communities…
But the movement was actually born from a group of law students from the Pacific Islands, who pushed the governments of the region to fight against major polluters, such as the United States and China, which in the first week of the process They have shown resistance to judges ruling in favor of demanding responsibilities beyond what is stipulated in the UN Convention on climate change or the Paris Agreement. “I hope the judges are on the right side of history,” says Gounden, who speaks to elDiario.es at the doors of the Peace Palace during the first day of hearings.
How did this cause for climate justice begin?
It started five years ago in the Pacific promoted by young students. Specifically, it started on a campus in Vanuatu and then spread to islands throughout the Pacific. They reflected on what the future would be like for them and, especially, thought that world leaders were not doing enough to protect the most climate-vulnerable nations. The Pacific region is probably the most vulnerable from a climatic point of view: there are rises in sea level, high intensity cyclones, droughts, landslides and destruction due to the pressure of the climate crisis.
And how did you come to this cause?
My story in this campaign began about four years ago, when students contacted Greenpeace Australia-Pacific, which is the region I come from. We needed government support, and we used our legal network to start with Pacific governments. We have regional offices in different areas, which contacted their governments to participate in the process.
This advisory opinion is not legally binding, but what comes out of it can influence laws that are. An advisory opinion from the great court of the world has a lot of force and great moral value
Furthermore, as part of Greenpeace, we have a huge international network and the fight became more than just a grassroots fight. From there, the reach was global. All that lobby and the noise of activism were helpful in this fight, but it is the Pacific Islander students fighting climate change who brought everyone together to take it to the highest court in the world.
How many people and from how many countries are here today?
There are people from the Pacific, people from Europe, Asia, South America and also the Middle East. Throughout these days more people will come from all over the world, from the Philippines, from many countries. We need as much noise as possible to reach that room.
What do you expect from the views? It is not a judgment, it is a court opinion…
This advisory opinion is not legally binding, but what comes out of it can influence laws that are. An advisory opinion from the world’s great court has a lot of force and great moral value, which can catalyze the legal changes that are required in terms of the protection of human rights when it comes to climate change. We have the entire United Nations here with presentations from different States and I hope that the voices of the community are also reflected within that process.
What can we expect from the countries that pollute the most and that are also participating?
Good question. Many of them will argue that these types of cases should not be heard in the International Court of Justice, but in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the Paris Agreement is located. Those processes are extremely frustrating and really slow. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has recently ruled that we must go beyond the UN Convention, that we must go beyond the Paris Agreement and use everything that is available.
It’s not just a climate case, it’s about people’s lives, the livelihood of communities, people trying to stay on their lands, speak their languages, practice their cultures.
It’s not just a climate case, it’s about people’s lives, the livelihood of communities, people trying to stay on their lands, speak their languages, practice their cultures. There will be States, which are the most polluting, that will say that we should keep this within the other system; but there is a huge and powerful unity, a unified global South. We have to use everything we have available to protect human rights.
What do you think of the position that China and the United States have maintained during the hearings, which have rejected legal obligations or responsibilities? [Esta pregunta se añadió al formulario por teléfono tras varios días de audiencias en el tribunal].
Both the US and China tried to minimize their obligations to take ambitious measures against climate change. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the world’s leading polluters ignore science and evade their responsibility for the climate crisis. By ignoring existing human rights and legal obligations, and rejecting climate justice, they are abandoning climate-vulnerable communities to the harm they have caused.
What do you think the judges will decide?
Judges are people and that is why it is so important to have the voices of the communities to reach the emotions they carry inside. I hope they are on the right side of history on this and listen to the communities and people who are actually facing the climate crisis and not those who instigate and pollute the environment. This is a moment in history when all those things can change.
We are in front of the UN court for an advisory opinion, do you think we will be here in a few years for a global judgment on climate change?
I hope not, because these processes can be long, frustratingly slow, and communities can’t wait that long. There are already many communities that are being relocated or having to move due to sea level rise. There are lives that are being destroyed by this and we cannot have another process that takes this long. These judicial rulings take three to six months to resolve and then States have to apply it in their legal system and then at the international level. I hope it does not take two to three years and that it is as quick as possible so that our communities can live a dignified life.
#promoters #largest #judicial #case #climate #justice #hope #judges #side
