Global Maritime Court Recognizes Greenhouse Gases as Marine Pollution, Urges Action Beyond Paris Accord

In a landmark decision, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ruled on Tuesday that greenhouse gases (GHGs) qualify as marine pollution. This pivotal judgment is seen as a major breakthrough for small island states grappling with the existential threat posed by rising sea levels and global warming.

The tribunal’s advisory opinion marks its first climate-related judgment and asserts that emissions from fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases absorbed by the oceans constitute marine pollution. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future environmental litigation and underscores the urgent need for comprehensive climate action.

The court emphasized that nations must exceed the requirements set by the 2015 Paris Agreement to effectively safeguard the marine environment and the vulnerable states that depend on it. “What happened today was that the law and science met together in this tribunal, and both won,” stated Cheryl Bazard, the Bahamas’ ambassador to the European Union, representing one of the nine Caribbean and Pacific island nations that sought the opinion.

Small island nations, often with limited economic leverage, have long felt marginalized in global climate negotiations. These states have persistently highlighted the inadequacy of international commitments to curb carbon emissions, which fail to meet the necessary thresholds to mitigate the most severe impacts of climate change.

The ITLOS opinion asserts that states have a legal obligation to monitor and reduce emissions contributing to climate change, mandating specific requirements for environmental impact assessments. Moreover, the court declared that emission reduction targets must be based on the best available science and adhere to international standards, thereby setting a higher benchmark than the Paris Agreement.

Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne hailed the ruling, stating, “The ITLOS opinion will inform our future legal and diplomatic work in putting an end to inaction that has brought us to the brink of an irreversible disaster.” Nikki Reisch, director at the Centre for International Environmental Law, reinforced this sentiment, noting that the opinion clarifies that compliance with the Paris Agreement alone is insufficient.

The decision is poised to influence forthcoming climate obligation opinions from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights and the International Court of Justice. A similar precedent was established recently when the European Court of Human Rights sided with plaintiffs against Switzerland for inadequate climate action.

Representing Tuvalu, Eselealofa Apinelu emphasized that the opinion underscores the legal duty of all states to protect the marine environment from climate change’s existential threats. He called it “an important first step in holding the major polluters accountable.”

Despite this significant ruling, global consensus on concerted action remains challenging. China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, contested the Tribunal’s authority to issue such advisory opinions, arguing that it could fragment international law. China’s foreign ministry has yet to comment on the ruling.

The nations involved in bringing this case forward include Palau, Niue, Vanuatu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, and St. Kitts and Nevis. The ruling signifies a crucial advancement in the fight against climate change, offering hope for more stringent global measures to protect vulnerable states and the marine environment.

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!