It’s certainly an odd tone to be going out on, but compounding the “full and unconditional” pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, in the last couple of days and an undercut to constructive climate action at the International Court of Justice this week, it’s small wonder the Biden administration has been accused of undermining the ‘legacy’ the world was promised before the return of President-elect, Donald Trump.

Taking a stance that has drawn ire and fury from climate justice campaigners, the US – the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter – has, in the last few hours, argued against the prevailing call that countries ought to be legally obliged to fight climate change, or face the legal ramifications for failing to do so.

Showing an early hand ahead of the re-instatement of proven climate denier, President-elect Donald Trump in January next year, the US intervened with discussions on Wednesday at an historic climate hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, where small island nations and other climate-vulnerable countries are currently calling for wealthy, polluting nations most responsible for the climate breakdown to be held legally responsible.

It was supposed to be a “pivotal moment for the fight against climate change”, in which the International Union for Conservation of Nature has called on the ICJ to reshape the way in which global climate action is governed. Stark times call for stark measures and the world is currently facing the intensifying impacts of climate change, from rising seas threatening small islands to unprecedented heatwaves devastating communities.

Yet it’s the belief of the US that the United Nations’ framework convention on climate change (the UNFCCC) and 2015 Paris agreement – an accord the US is almost certain to pull away from come Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 – alongside other existing, non-binding treaties are the best way forward for tackling the global crisis.

In fact, the current UN climate change regime “embodies the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change,” Margaret Taylor, legal advisor at the state department, told ICJ judges on Wednesday.

“Any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligation states have under this treaty regime.”

While the US wasn’t alone in its stance – joined by Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia (a succession of countries linked, of course, by being major fossil fuel economies and among the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters) – it has managed to draw the greatest share of ire from campaigners who have since called the move out as an “absurd undermining of the promised Biden legacy.”

Among them, Oxfam’s America’s climate justice director, Ashfaq Khalfan, was quick to voice the organisation’s disappointment over the administration’s stance, sharing his disbelief the it is “taking such a morally bankrupt position before the world’s highest court.”

“It’s absurd for the Biden administration to argue before the ICJ that countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution, especially as it prepares to turn over the executive office to a proven climate denier like President-elect Trump, whose policies are likely to deeply harm US climate action,” said Khalfan.

“This opposition to strong international law on climate justice categorically undermines the Biden administration’s climate legacy.”

Proceedings over the next two weeks are to be a crescendo of sorts following years of campaigning by vulnerable nations and the global climate justice movement. Their combined calls finally prompted the United Nations to ask the International Court of Justice – the United Nations’ highest judicial authority – to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so.

While ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding, they carry significant legal and political weight. The outcome of proceedings over the next two weeks will likely be referred to as an authoritative document in future climate litigation and during international climate negotiations, writes The Guardian. This would therefore serve as a major precedent for lawsuits citing the impacts of climate change in the future.

More than 100 countries and organisations are testifying over the course of the proceedings, during which many hope that science will be elevated to the forefront, ensuring international law reflects the realities of climate breakdown and the urgent need for transformative action.

Among those most vulnerable to climate change are the Pacific nations, led by Vanautu, which are pushing for fair financial support and compensation for the loss and damage driven by states most responsible for climate change.

Following the US intervention, Vanautu’s special envoy for climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, said his country was “disappointed” at the US and others.

“These nations, some of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions… these treaties are essential but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability.”

Oxfam’s Khalfan added: “The US has today denied any firm obligation to reduce carbon pollution to safer levels, phase out fossil fuel production, or provide funding to lower-income countries to help with renewable energy and protection from climate harms.

“Governments have failed to do what is necessary to protect humanity from the climate crisis, and it is essential that the ICJ holds them to account by pushing them towards concrete action to ensure climate justice.”

Click here for more from the Oceanographic Newsroom.