On the night of November 23, in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, “the masks have come off” as “the governments of wealthy and developed nations revealed their true intentions—they never intended to honor their commitments under the Paris Agreement,” according to Sanjay Vashist, Director of the Climate Action Network South Asia.
Scientific reports confirm the failure of successive COP conferences to achieve tangible results in curbing climate change and its adverse effects. Despite the commitments made at COP21 in Paris to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service reported a 1.62°C increase above those levels in November alone.
The peoples of the Global South came to the Baku talks in search of “a lifeboat” from the climate crisis, but all they received was “a plank of wood to cling to”, said Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead at Christian Aid. Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director at the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, described the negotiations as having taken place under ‘coercion,’ where developing nations accepted “a financial deal woefully inadequate to address the gravity of our global climate crisis”.
False Solutions Undermine the Right to a Healthy Environment
At least 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists and 480 carbon capture industry representatives had access to COP29, even though these so-called “solutions” fail to advance real progress in addressing climate change or ensuring the human right to live in a healthy environment.
Fossil fuels remain the primary cause of global temperature increases, contributing more than 80 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Richard Pearshouse, Environment and Human Rights Director at Human Rights Watch, stated: “Increased production of coal, oil, and gas compounds the harm to human health, drives human rights abuses against fence-line communities at sites of fossil fuel production, and accelerates our global climate breakdown.” Fossil fuels also pollute the air, leading to health issues like cancer, as previously reported by Daraj. Speaking to Daraj, Mohamed Abdel Monem, a member of the Climate Change Committee for the Mediterranean region, explained that “new insects and diseases have emerged due to climate change.”
For four decades, researchers and human rights defenders have worked to strengthen the link between environmental protection and the right to health. These efforts culminated in the UN Human Rights Council and United Nations General Assembly formally recognizing the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 2021 and 2022, respectively. In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council created a Special Rapporteur mandate to promote and protect human rights in the context of climate change, aligning with COP26 in Glasgow, which advocated a human rights-based approach to combating climate change.
Prior to the convening of the COP summit in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, UN experts called on countries to prioritize the protection of human rights, stating that “current and planned climate action up to 2030 is insufficient to ensure a safe climate for humanity, consistent with everyone’s right to a healthy environment.’ They further noted that ‘current collective plans are limited to reducing emissions by only 2 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, while a reduction of 43 percent is needed to avert climate chaos.”
The summit successfully highlighted the intersection between climate change and health, organizing several sessions addressing this topic. The World Health Organization (WHO) released its report for COP29 on climate change and health, emphasizing the importance of health as a cornerstone of climate action. This connection between climate change and health emerged as one of the prominent themes in the delegation pavilions. The UK pavilion hosted a session titled “The Road to Belém: connecting health, science and Indigenous Knowledge.” Hugh Sharma-Waddington, an assistant professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), emphasized: “We must continue to advocate for making health a central pillar of climate action and highlight solutions that benefit both humanity and the planet.”
Benjamin Schachter, Coordinator of the Environment and Climate Change Team at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, told Daraj: “The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment—recognized by the UN General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child—was a key part of this year’s negotiations.” However, COP29 failed to make meaningful progress in protecting this right. Schachter noted that “some countries resisted human rights language, even language previously agreed upon in negotiations.” A clause focusing on ensuring that climate financing aligns with and enhances human rights was removed during the second week of the conference, according to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Activists criticized the summit for promoting “false solutions.”
While COP28 in Dubai included language on “phasing out fossil fuels,” the Baku agreement entirely ignored this issue. The Loss and Damage Fund remained empty, reflecting a clear failure to deliver concrete solutions for addressing climate change impacts. However, COP29 did establish rules for an international carbon trading system, touted by major nations as evidence of their leadership in combating climate change. Yet, these same nations continue to sell arms and directly or indirectly contribute to the “war on climate” through ongoing armed conflicts worldwide. As Teresa Anderson, Global Climate Justice Lead at ActionAid International, remarked, the agreement text “is not worth the paper it’s written on.”
Establishing a Binding International Custom through the International Court of Justice
The failure of the Paris Agreement has driven several human rights advocates to seek recourse through international courts to clarify states’ obligations under international law. In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), presided over by Judge Nawaf Salam, regarding the responsibilities of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions and the legal consequences for states causing significant harm to the climate system. This request was the result of efforts by students from the University of the South Pacific, the government of Vanuatu, and other Oceanian nations.
The ICJ is one of three international courts asked to provide guidance on states’ legal obligations in addressing the climate crisis. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued the first advisory opinion from an international court on climate change, affirming that greenhouse gas emissions pollute the marine environment and emphasizing the necessity for states to take all measures to control such emissions. Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to release its advisory opinion on the same matter soon.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion is anticipated to play a crucial role in future climate negotiations and effective, equitable climate action. In an interview with Daraj, Dr. Jad Tohme highlighted that “the ICJ’s advisory opinion could be a significant impetus for states to engage in serious negotiations to develop climate-related agreements by expanding and clarifying the legal obligations imposed on states. The court might explicitly declare that climate protection is an integral part of international agreements and human rights principles that states are committed to uphold.”
Advisory opinions, as the ICJ states, are “tools of preventive diplomacy that contribute significantly to maintaining peace.” Dr. Tohme noted that while these opinions are not legally binding, “their impact can evolve into binding norms if the international community adopts them as unwritten international custom.” Philippe Sands, a professor of public law, concurred, emphasizing that advisory opinions help “clarify and develop international law.”
The Paris Agreement as a Legal Shield
The ICJ was not tasked with interpreting states’ obligations under climate agreements. However, during the ninth anniversary of the Paris Agreement, major polluting states continued their efforts in The Hague, as they had in Baku earlier this year, to exploit the agreement to their advantage. During court hearings, these states sought to limit the ICJ’s authority to establish additional obligations derived from international treaties other than climate agreements. They framed their responses around the 2015 Paris Agreement to evade broader responsibilities under international law to mitigate cross-border harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The arguments of some oil-producing states contradicted established legal opinions, which affirm that climate treaties complement, rather than contradict, existing legal obligations. For instance, countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Canada argued that human rights agreements do not apply to climate change issues. The UK claimed, according to climate justice activist Dominic Palmer, that “the Paris Agreement represents the extent of states’ obligations regarding climate change”—a claim previously rejected by both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the European Court of Human Rights in the Klimaseniorinnen case V Switzerland.
Commenting on the court hearings, Sebastien Duyck, an attorney and Director of the Climate and Human Rights Campaign at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), stated that the ICJ witnessed “attempts by some nations to undermine human rights and climate accountability.”
According to the Paris Agreement, major polluting and wealthy nations must take steps to phase out fossil fuels, provide necessary funding and technological support, and address loss and damage. Duyck noted that the 15 largest polluting nations argued during the hearings that the Paris Agreement supersedes other international standards. The agreement was referenced 792 times during the second week of discussions—twice as many times as the word ‘justice’ and five times as many as the word ‘science’, he added. Additionally, OPEC described Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as ‘contributions,’ not ‘commitments.'” Laurence Tubiana, architect of the Paris Agreement, asserted: “We cannot allow anyone to misuse the Paris Agreement to downplay their climate responsibilities.”
In contrast, developing nations sought legal mechanisms to advance climate mitigation, especially after the failure of negotiations in Baku last month. On the occasion of Human Rights Day, the ICJ witnessed robust advocacy for the right to a clean and healthy environment. Many nations called for establishing a global accountability mechanism to hold polluting states responsible for environmental harm. Simultaneously, other nations emphasized the importance of phasing out fossil fuels as a crucial step in protecting the right to a healthy environment.
Will Belém Succeed?
All eyes are on Brazil as it prepares to host the 30th edition of the global Climate Change Conference (COP30) in the city of Belém next year. During deliberations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Brazil advocated for recognizing COP decisions—particularly those related to financial support from developed to developing countries—as agreements and subsequent practices for interpreting climate treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
However, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) noted that Brazil’s contributions during the sessions primarily focused on the UN Framework Conventions on Climate Change, neglecting customary standards and other treaties that bind states, such as human rights conventions and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
On World Health Day (November 18, 2024), the “Coalition for the Continuity of COP Presidencies on Climate and Health” was established to ensure that health remains a core focus in climate discussions through to COP30 in Belém. This initiative, led jointly by the United Kingdom, Egypt, the UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), aims to unify efforts to drive global initiatives at the intersection of climate and health.
Brazil’s hosting of COP30, as a country whose constitution enshrines environmental rights, brings a new dimension of accountability to climate negotiations. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected to strengthen future negotiations, ensuring they safeguard the right to a healthy environment. According to CIEL, “The Paris Agreement is neither the beginning nor the end of states’ climate obligations in addressing and compensating for climate-related harm.” The center argues that effectively combating climate change requires states to go beyond voluntary commitments and fulfill their obligations under human rights and customary law.
In this context, Benjamin Schachter, Coordinator of the Environment and Climate Change team at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), told Daraj that “human rights are non-negotiable, as they are legally binding and apply to all states.” Schachter emphasized that “a human rights-based approach to climate action yields more effective and sustainable results, as noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
Santino Severoni, Director of Health and Migration at WHO, highlighted the importance of including health as a “central argument” in both formal and informal climate discussions at COP30. He noted: “We are fully aware of the health impacts of climate change, but significant ambiguity surrounds this complex interaction due to its multifaceted nature.” He added, “It is essential for both the health and climate sectors to deeply understand this topic to ensure effective coordination and incorporate it into system design, guaranteeing the right to health for all.”
The ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected to mark a turning point for negotiations from Baku to Belém. According to Dr. Jad Tohme, “the advisory opinion could increase international pressure on states hesitant to take serious climate actions, steering negotiations toward more comprehensive and effective solutions.”
Climate change is the greatest health threat facing humanity, according to WHO, which submitted a list of interconnected health impacts of climate change to the ICJ. The organization pointed out that worsening climate-related diseases contributed to over 39.5 million deaths in 2019 alone. With significant progress in linking climate change to human rights—particularly the recognition of the human right to live in a clean and healthy environment as part of customary international law—it has become imperative to include the harms of climate change to human rights in official negotiations.
Schachter stressed that “climate action will not succeed without allocating resources for adaptation, mitigation, and addressing loss and damage.” He added, “These resources must be allocated in ways that respect and protect individuals’ rights and provide them with effective remedies when they are harmed by climate change or by efforts to combat it.”
This report was produced with the support of the Qareeb program implemented by the French media development agency CFI and funded by the French Development Agency (AFD).
