Jamaica and other small island developing states will, we expect, be paying close attention to the case brought by Vanuatu and other low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) aimed at setting a legal framework on how countries should tackle climate change and help vulnerable nations combat its impact which has been devastating, to say the least.

We are told that over the next two weeks more than 100 countries and organisations will make submissions on the matter, the highest number ever before the United Nations’ top court.

The case comes just after a bitterly negotiated climate deal at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, which saw wealthy polluting countries ultimately agreeing to find at least US$300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer nations transition to cleaner energy sources and prepare for increasing climate impacts such as extreme weather.

But developing countries condemned the pledge, describing it as an “insult”, saying that it was too little, too late, and argued that it did not give them the vital resources they require to truly address the complexities of the climate crisis.

Interestingly, some of the world’s largest carbon polluters — including the top three greenhouse gas emitters China, the US, and India — will be among the countries to address the 15-judge panel at the ICJ.

Opening the case on Monday, Vanuatu’s representative for climate change, Mr Ralph Regenvanu, told the judges that, “This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.”

Like Mr Regenvanu, activists are hopeful that the court’s opinion will have far-reaching legal consequences in the battle against climate change and impact ongoing court cases as well as domestic and international legislation.

However, we are told that the court could take months, or even years, to deliver an opinion, given the vast volume of arguments and evidence that will be presented.

There is some concern that the court may not provide very specific answers, but rather a legal blueprint to guide decisions on more specific questions.

That, we fear, could delay further any significant action to mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly on smaller and more vulnerable countries that lack the resources to implement projects and programmes vital to their survival.

Readers who have kept abreast of this issue will recall that in 2015 global leaders agreed at the COP summit in Paris to work at limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

However, that agreement did not prescribe how to achieve that goal and now it is nowhere near on track.

Preliminary scientific data from the Global Carbon Project, published during the COP29 negotiations, showed that emissions of carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas rose this year to a new record high.

It seems to us, therefore, that in hearing the current case, the ICJ needs to deal with two key questions put to it by the UN General Assembly last year:

First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from polluting greenhouse gas emissions?

Second, what are the legal consequences of these obligations in cases in which states, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?