Top UN court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change.
"States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.
The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met."
"I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out.
Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said: "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."
Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second biggest current emitter behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.
With scepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion.
"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.
Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem.
The court's opinion is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.
"This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace.
Harj Narulla, Barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued.
"These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said.
Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
Climate, gender in focus for World Bank in aid-reliant Pacific Islands
SYDNEY, July 28 (Reuters) - The World Bank has maintained its focus on climate change and gender in the Pacific, managing director of operations Anna Bjerde said on a visit to Australia, even as its largest shareholder the United States reduces aid in those areas. After meeting Pacific Islands economic ministers in Fiji, Bjerde said countries in the region continued to worry about being exposed to the accelerating effects of climate change, and had grave concerns about food security and rising debt levels. Six Pacific Island countries are at high risk of debt distress, the bank says. The World Bank is moving a regional vice president from Washington to Singapore, and will move directors from Australia to Fiji and Papua New Guinea to be closer to a $3.4 billion Pacific aid programme that has grown seven-fold in 10 years, she said in an interview on Monday. "We are committed to designing projects that really take into account the vulnerabilities of countries we work in. In this part of the world, countries are vulnerable to the impact of climate change," she said. "We haven't really changed our language around that," she added. Pacific road projects designed to be flood resilient provide better infrastructure that can withstand the changing climate and also be counted in climate finance programmes, Bjerde said. The World Bank was focussed on boosting women's workforce participation to help lift the region's economic growth, she said, after meeting women leaders in Fiji who highlighted the need for childcare so women can work. On Monday, Bjerde also met officials from the Australian government, the largest bilateral donor to the region. Under reforms introduced last year by its president Ajay Banga, the World Bank has started to roll out region-wide programmes to have a bigger impact among Pacific countries with small populations. Eight countries have joined an arrangement that stops small island states being cut off from the international financial system, while a health programme targeting non-communicable disease will potentially reach 2 million people across the Pacific Ocean and train 16,000 health workers. A trade programme is also being designed to give access to goods faster and more cheaply, she said.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
UN tells Australia, Turkey to end COP31 hosting standoff
SYDNEY, July 28 (Reuters) - The United Nations climate chief on Monday urged Australia and Turkey to resolve their long-running tussle over who will host next year's COP31 summit, calling the delay unhelpful and unnecessary. Australia and Turkey submitted bids to host the high-profile conference in 2022 and both countries have refused to concede to the other, opens new tab ever since. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees COP summits, said the deadlock was undermining preparations. 'A decision needs to be made very quickly,' he said at a Smart Energy Council event in Sydney. 'The two proponents need to come together and between themselves and within the group to make that decision. The delay in making that decision is unhelpful to the process.' The annual UN talks rotate through five regional groups. COP31's host must be unanimously agreed upon by the 28 members of the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) bloc. The UN had set a deadline of June for the group to reach consensus. Australia is seeking to co-host next year's summit with the Pacific to showcase its renewable energy transition. It had hoped to secure the bid, which has majority backing among WEOG members, at COP29 in Azerbaijan. But Turkey has rebuffed calls to drop out of the race, and instead doubled down on its efforts during interim talks in Bonn last month. Turkey argues its Mediterranean location would help reduce emissions from flights bringing delegates to the conference, and has pointed out its smaller oil and gas industry compared to Australia. Stiell said the deadlock was now affecting the planning of the COP process, involving thousands of delegates from 200 member countries. 'In negotiations that are as complex as they are, that lack of clarity creates tensions that are completely unnecessary at this stage,' he said. Asked for comment, the office of Australian Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen referred to an interview where he said Australia's bid had the backing of 23 out of 28 WEOG members. Australia had also approached Turkey multiple times to find a 'win-win' solution, he said. 'We've got the votes. We could have all the votes in the world. If Turkey is not going to withdraw, that's still a challenge,' Bowen told The Conversation Politics Podcast on Thursday. At the same event, Stiell also called on Australia to set an ambitious 2035 emissions target and accelerate its clean energy transition. Australia's national climate plan, due in September, would be a 'defining moment' that could send a message that 'this country is open for clean investment, trade, and long-term partnerships', he said.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
This outrageous new climate change scam will bankrupt Britain
Rachel Reeves, beware. Britain could soon be facing yet more eye-watering demands for reparations. But not just because of all the slaves our distant ancestors owned. Now we could be sued for all the coal they burned. That's because, according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), countries could potentially be entitled to seek damages from other countries for their historic contributions to climate change. Which is particularly bad news for the British. Nowadays we're responsible for less than one per cent of the world's carbon emissions. Two hundred and fifty years ago, however, we were responsible for practically all of them. Effectively, therefore, we could be sued for starting the industrial revolution. Following this logic, of course, you might ask: why stop at the 18th century? Why not go back further? Mankind is believed to have originated in Kenya, and all pollution is caused by mankind, ergo it's all Kenya's fault. So let's sue it. And if Kenya tells the ICJ that it's too poor to pay up, not to worry, because there are other juicy targets we could fleece. As soon as we've tracked down the descendants of whichever caveman invented the wheel, we can sue them for all the world's car exhaust fumes. At present, however, it would seem that Britain is the nation likeliest to fall victim to this brazen legal opportunism. But in the event that other countries do try to sue us, I hope we'll politely explain something. We don't owe them. They owe us. This is because the industrial revolution and its countless associated benefits didn't just make the world richer. They caused people to live longer. In the mid 1700s, just before the industrial revolution began, life expectancy in this country alone was about 40. Now it's double that. And after other countries joined the industrial revolution, the life expectancy of their populations shot up, too. Of course, this increase wasn't due solely to greater prosperity. It was also due to revolutionary medical advances: for example, antibiotics. And which country does the world have to thank for discovering the very first antibiotic? Oh yes: Britain. Which also happens to be the country responsible for coming up with the smallpox vaccine: a breakthrough that is said to have saved more than 200 million lives worldwide. Overall, then, it seems perfectly clear that our forefathers did the world vastly more good than harm. Which is why, if any countries have the brass neck to sue us, we should respond by billing them. 'Dear Sirs, 'But for the dazzling historic ingenuity of this nation, half your people would never have been born, and the other half would have died by their 30th birthday. We therefore enclose an invoice for your quarterly GDP. Kind regards, Britain.' Why millennial women are sick of men Have you heard about the dramatic new trend that has apparently gripped the millennial generation? It's called 'heterofatalism'. And it describes the decision by growing numbers of straight women to give up on romantic relationships – because they've concluded that all men are rubbish. In the past week, upmarket liberal newspapers have been bursting with articles by women setting out the reasons for their disillusionment. In the New York Times, for example, a female author accused prospective male partners of 'not wanting me badly enough, not communicating with me clearly enough, not devoting themselves to me… Men are what is rotten in the state of straightness.' Meanwhile, a young woman writing for the London Times revealed that many of her single female friends feel equally disenchanted. 'I just don't think the men out there are good enough,' said one. 'I hate them all,' said another. Of course, since I myself am a man, you might expect me to be scandalised by these sweeping generalisations about members of my sex. You might also expect me to speculate as to how upmarket liberal newspapers would respond to single men declaring, 'I just don't think the women out there are good enough' and 'I hate them all'. Would such men be treated sympathetically? Or would they be recognised as embittered, sexist incels who are simply attempting to blame others for their own romantic failures? As a matter of fact, however, I'm not put out at all. Far from it. Indeed, I'm strongly supportive of these women's 'heterofatalist' stance – for one very simple reason. It will take the Western world's whiniest, most melodramatic and most insufferably self-absorbed young people out of the gene pool. After all, if they permanently abstain from relationships, they'll never have children, and thus won't pass on their self-pitying, navel-gazing narcissism to the next generation. Instead, the task of human reproduction will be left to people who are likeable, self-aware and emotionally well-adjusted. In the long term, therefore, millennial heterofatalism will result in enormous benefits to humanity. So, to all the 30-something singles featured in these articles, I say: you're absolutely right. Men are awful. Every last one. So please do stick to your vow of abstinence. The world is right behind you, all the way.
