Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applicants and the Respondents have agreed to submit this dispute “Concerning
liability for the impacts of climate change” to the International Court of Justice pursuant to
Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Statute of this Court and by virtue of a Special Agreement
(Compromis) signed in The Hague, The Netherlands, on September 14, 2011 and jointly
notified to the Court on the same date. Both parties have agreed that the Compromis is
without prejudice to any question of the burden of proof. In accordance with Article 36,
paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Court has jurisdiction to decide all matters referred to it for
decision. Both parties shall accept the Court’s decision as final and binding and execute it in
good faith.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The Parties agree to subject the following issues for oral arguments and resolution by the
Court:
I. Whether United States, European Union, and China are liable for environmental
damage in the Philippines, Maldives and Bolivia where the activities in the former
states are directly responsible for the damages in the latter or whether can it be
concluded that activities in the respondent-countries resulted in the damage in the
applicant-countries.
II. Whether the science of climate change is adequate enough to justify that
respondents’ activities are the proximate cause of the climate change impacts
being experienced by the applicants.
III. Whether the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and other international
instruments such as the Stockholm and Rio Declarations create liability for
contributions by countries to GHG emissions in the atmosphere.
IV. Whether the responsibility of the Respondents specific and particular to them (in
contrast to a general obligation to affected countries) give the Applicants the right
to ask the remedies they are requesting.
V. Whether the remedies requested by the Applicants appropriate and are enforceable
against the Respondents.
1https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/climate_change/
2 https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets-0/science-climate-change/1-what-
climate-change
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. The respondent submits that it cannot be held liable for the activities it had
being a remote cause on the negative climate change impacts the applicants
are suffering
C. The remedies prayed for by the applicants are not enforceable against USA.
I. The respondent submits that it cannot be held liable for the activities it had
being a remote cause on the negative climate change impacts the applicants
are suffering
It is well-known fact that USA is one of the countries categorized as first world
countries which are highly industrialized and well-developed as well as China and
European Union.
China in its fast pace industrialization has overtaken the spot of USA as the
number one emitter of CO2 Fossil Fuels in 2015. Worthy to note is the larger
summation of CO2 Fossil Fuels emitted by China compared to USA and EU
combined. It is noticeable that in just a short span of time computed from the age of
industrialization till 2015, it has been emitting humungous amounts of GHG,
forwarding in the following decades, China might rank 1st in its per capita emissions.
The largest contributor of climate change are human activities which cannot be
ascertained with particularity by scientists or science itself. For climate change is a
universal and natural phenomenon that cannot be confined in limited measuring
devices and be trusted upon based on the statistics resulting therefrom.
There are specific weather events like typhoons, sea-level rise, shortening of
winter, lengthening of summer, hurricanes, abrupt snow falling and some other natural
phenomena that are being reported through the media as an “effect of climate change”
but there is a missing link which would prove the cause and effect phenomenon, the
scientific and circumstantial evidence.
Science can forecast the negative impact or catastrophic events that might occur in
the future but it has not yet achieve a means to scientifically prove which country has
contributed more compared to the other or contributed least compared to the other.
Historically and per capita, USA is the largest emitter of GHG in the
atmosphere, however, there is impossibility to measure greenhouse gas emissions on
the early 1900s. So it is not a valid justification to use historical evidence to justify a
scientific fact which was yet inexistent during that time. The emergence of climate
change became popular in 1992 when the UNFCC came into being which gives rise to
the issue of man-made climate change. Following such convention, ways and means
arose targeting the mitigation of the GHG emissions in the atmosphere such as Kyoto
Protocol and Paris Agreement. From then on, reduction of the toxic gasses’ emission
has become the main concern of climate advocates.
Hence, the respondent USA believes that all humanity not just certain
countries should be held responsible making all a recipient of its unwanted impacts.
The negative impacts to Philippines, Bolivia and Maldives are not attributable to USA
alone. The respondent also admits its fair share of responsibility and is committed in
adhering and promoting international prevention measures for the sake of future
generations.
Kyoto Protocol
Article 18 states that, “The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of
the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session, approve appropriate and
effective procedures and mechanisms to determine and to address cases of non-
compliance with the provisions of this Protocol, including through the
development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause,
type, degree and frequency of non-compliance. Any procedures and mechanisms
under this Article entailing binding consequences shall be adopted by means of an
amendment to this Protocol.”
Paris Agreement
2. The committee shall operate under the modalities and procedures adopted by
the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this
Agreement at its first session and report annually to the Conference of the
Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.
Stockholm
Principle 13. States shall develop national law regarding liability and
compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States
shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop
further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects
of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control
to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
As to the foregoing reasons, USA cannot be held liable for compensatory damages as
it was not expressly mandated by the statute governing it.
Moreover, Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) defines
customary international law as “evidence of general practice accepted as law”, and a widely-
recognised rule of customary international law is the no-harm rule, which essentially holds
that no State must harm another. Both avoidable and unavoidable climate change damage fall
within the ambit of legal consequences of a breach of the no-harm rule, so that financing and
implementing adaptation measures – as addressed in the climate regime – are just as much a
legal consequence of a breach of international law as the provision of compensation for loss
and damage.
C. The remedies prayed for by the applicants are not enforceable against USA.
The remedy requested by Maldives to allow its citizens to immigrate to their
respective countries as a matter of right, waiving all legal requirements is against the
principle of equity.
Lastly, the order to provide funds to Bolivia and Kenya so they can adapt to as well
as mitigate climate change is without valid justificatio
But big spending on energy intensive industries persisted through 2017, meaning
China has been backsliding on the climate progress it made earlier this decade and the rest of
the world must redouble efforts simply to ensure global CO2 emissions don’t climb
dramatically.4
Thus, no country should be exempt from future liability on the grounds of historical
responsibility or equity subject to the international agreements.
4 https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/05/30/china-co2-carbon-climate-emissions-rise-in-2018/?
fbclid=IwAR3jNZDTXPF2OiGmTb0qNpTcEp28eX0p0BgZOUIOcRaS5wKBtu8PPYZ2YOI
For the foregoing reasons, the respondent respectfully requests this Honourable Court to find,
adjudge and declare: