MANILA, Philippines – Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, representing the Philippines at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), urged the international community to adopt an environmental legal remedy similar to the Philippines’ writ of kalikasan (writ of nature) to provide relief for vulnerable countries battered by the climate crisis.
Guevarra is one of the delegates from the Philippines who spoke before the World Court on Tuesday, December 3, during the second day of public hearings on the landmark climate change case.
“It is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord stronger protection for environmental rights, aiming, among others, to provide a speedy and effective resolution of a case involving the violation of one’s constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats,” Guevarra said on Tuesday.
In the Philippines, the writ of kalikasan had been invoked at courts to stop mining operations, big-ticket infrastructure projects, and genetically modified crops, among others.
Guevarra admitted to the panel of 15 judges at the ICJ that the writ of kalikasan had been so far applied only locally.
He maintained, however, that the writ is a “remedial innovation” that could afford help for vulnerable countries.
“The Philippines respectfully submits the proposition that a similar remedial measure be considered and adopted in the international setting to afford seriously affected states and their peoples with immediate recourse and relief from environmental damage arising from breaches of state obligations under international law,” the solicitor general said.
Obligations to save a warming world
Countries have requested the ICJ, the United Nations’ (UN) top court, to provide an advisory opinion on states’ obligations to prevent the climate crisis.
On Tuesday, the Philippines submitted that states are obligated not to cause transboundary harm and to exercise due diligence.
And when countries or state actors commit an act that run counter to these obligations, this could be considered an “internationally wrongful act.”
This would require those countries to take responsibility and make full reparation, Guevarra said.
“The insidious effects of climate change require that the entire plethora of customary international law, general principles of international law, and various conventions and treaties be correlated and applied simultaneously,” he said.
The Philippines also argued that climate change poses existential human rights issues and sovereignty and territorial integrity — all of which are supposed to be protected by existing conventions.
Philippine Permanent Representative to the UN Carlos Sorreta likened the loss of land due to rising sea levels to the loss of land due to conflict and wars.
“Climate change-induced sea level rise poses a severe threat to the territorial integrity of low-lying and island nations, analogous to the loss of territory by invasion to the use of force,” he said.
And if the UN Charter was created in the past to save future generations from war, it must now “save future generations from the ravages of climate change,” Sorreta added.
Over 100 countries and organizations are set to deliver testimonies during the ICJ’s public hearings from December 2 to 13. The Philippines was one of the sponsors of the resolution that spurred this landmark case to reach the World Court. – Rappler.com