Singapore called for greater clarity regarding international legal frameworks for climate action on Wednesday ( Dec. 11 ).
Singappore’s Ambassador for International Law Rena Lee made a public appearance at a hearing held by the International Court of Justice ( ICJ) in The Hague and called for a coordinated global response to climate change.
Singapore is at a disadvantage in terms of alternative energy, according to Mrs. Lee, but the country’s size and lack of characteristics like strong winds, near-surface volcanic resources, and main river systems, as well as its efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, she said.  ,
Our ability to meet our decarbonization goals will depend on advanced technology and successful global cooperation, such as through regional power grid collaboration and clean energy trade. We also want to see that all state fulfill their climate change duty, added Mrs. Lee.  ,
Singapore therefore requests an expert opinion from the Court to give the country’s recent state of international law some fresh advice and give the country the motivation to take additional climate action.
KEY ISSUES
While the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC are the “central arches” of the states ‘ commitments to climate change, according to Mrs. Lee, these treaties do not preclude the application of various international obligations.
Nothing about the UNFCCC or Paris Agreement suggests that their goals were to be unique or restrictive in nature. According to her, customary international law and various agreements may also have an impact on state ‘ duty to safeguard the weather system from greenhouse gas emissions.
Singapore supports coordinating climate change duty, arguing that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement should guide the implementation and understanding of customary international law and related contracts.
Another problem is how climate change’s requirements for environmental impact assessments include evaluating planned activities ‘ greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on meeting regional climate targets.
Participants usually concur that the prevention principle imposes a legal obligation to evaluate the environmental impact of planned activities that have a potential significant negative impact on the environment, according to Mrs. Lee.
She continued, adding that while Singapore concurs with the conclusion, the Judge may provide more details on how the responsibility is fulfilled in “practical conditions.”
This is because, in the context of climate change, it would only be occasionally that a second planned activity, when compared to the sheer volume of cumulative effects caused by human greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, could itself produce climate effects substantial enough to affect overall greenhouse gas levels.
According to Mrs. Lee, the second problem is that state are required to work together to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions.
She noted that there are shared commitments regarding how to do the objectives, especially those relating to climate change, even though customary international law and agreement provisions on participation may target specific objectives.
” Cooperation must be continuous, important and in good trust… Good trust is at the core of this obligation, even though the obligation to engage is not based on results. States are required to act honestly during the relevant consultation and joint processes.
The reach of common but distinct obligations and capabilities, taking into account national circumstances, and whether they cover historical emissions duty were brought up in the last discussion.
According to Mrs. Lee, there has been” considerable divergence” between participants regarding what the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement’s common but distinct responsibilities ( CBDR) entail.
” Some members have argued that the historical foundation for CBDR was never the role of the past. Some people claim that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement have abandoned traditional duty as a result of the addition of the words “respective capabilities” and “in the light of different federal circumstances.”
Therefore, the addition of the more words “respective abilities” and “in the light of different national circumstances” may be interpreted as excluding traditional role.  ,
Their inclusion, she said, “makes it clear that considerations are also taken into account when defining the relevant obligations” in addition to historical responsibility.
Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Wednesday that the country’s participation in a group of nations had prepared a resolution asking for an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the obligations of states in respect of climate change in March 2023.  ,
Singapore also submitted 90 written statements from other states and organizations to the ICJ in March of the year following the submission of the court’s questions.