Advisory opinion on obligations
IT’S unbelievably mind-boggling that we have only now just reached the stage — after all these COP years where it’s agreed upon — for the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) to issue an advisory opinion with respect to the obligations of COP member States on the Paris Climate Change Agreement.(FT 09/03 pg. 40).
More so, the call for Pacific Island Forum countries to make submissions to the ICJ on their current plight with respect to the effects of climate change.
It really seems like a snail pace progress towards surviving what could be an existential global threat.
Anyway, thanks to the Vanuatu Resolution for hastening the move towards the fulfillment of these obligations, particularly by those signatory countries contributing more to global warming.
It’s usually the largely affected countries on the periphery and margins of global warming who are actively pushing the fulfillment strings and you can’t really blame them for trying to survive.
It just goes to show just how hard it is to reach consensus at the global level as well as to fulfill internationally derived obligations at the State/ national level.
What always underpins any commitment at the State/national level, is usually whether national interests, sovereignty and economic/political survival will be undermined by the fulfillment of these obligations.
The answer for most signatory countries, when it comes down to the crunch, is usually and understandably a resounding yes. Unfortunately, time is not on our side.
EDWARD BLAKELOCK
Admiral Circle, Pacific Harbour