UN's top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations's top court announced Wednesday that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law.
The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't, calling it an 'urgent and existential' threat to humanity.
'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing.
The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a 'case by case' basis.
The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law.
The court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.
The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries.
All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court.
Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed.
After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations.
A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?
'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December.
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific.
'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press.
Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision.
'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP.
The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions.
But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week.
Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
___
Molly Quell, The Associated Press
Associated Press writer Annika Hammerschlag in Vanuatu contributed to this report.
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
30 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The clock is ticking on tariff negotiations
Opinion It's T minus one. As in, tariffs minus one. Or Trump minus one. Or maybe even TACO minus one. Only time — precious little time — will tell. ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Prime Minister Mark Carney On Aug. 1, the Trump administration has said its self-imposed range of tariffs on myriad foreign countries — including Canada — will come into effect. (Unless it turns out to be TACO minus one — U.S. President Donald Trump has backtracked so many times on announced tariffs that he's earned the nickname 'TACO,' an acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.') For Canada, that would mean a 35 per cent tariff on products not detailed in the USMCA trade deal, as well as the continuation of tariffs on aluminum, steel and automobiles, and a new copper tariff that also would come into effect on Friday. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the negotiations between Canada and the U.S. are in an 'intense phase.' Meanwhile, the Opposition Conservatives have complained that Canada is being left behind as others reach deals with the U.S. But at least two of those deals seem to be running into confusion and contrary claims — especially because they aren't on paper yet. Trump claimed that the government of Japan bought its way into lower tariffs — going from 25 per cent to 15 per cent — by agreeing to invest US$550 billion in the U.S., an investment that Trump says would see the U.S. government get 90 per cent of the profits. Japan says it made no such offer, that if anything, the suggestions was for 'up to' US$550 billion with no set amount, and that profits from any Japanese investment would be paid on a proportional basis, based on how much each party invested. Japanese officials have also said there is no written agreement, and that there would not be one based on Trump's terms. Meanwhile, a widely heralded deal with the European Union is also hitting the shoals of Trump exaggeration: numbers on the purchase of energy by EU member states have been questioned by the EU and it now appears that all EU members will vote on a prospective deal, while Trump characterized it as a historic complete package. The EU and the U.S. also have conflicting impressions about tariffs on pharmaceuticals, tariffs on steel and aluminum, investment in U.S. companies by the EU, and purchases of U.S. weapons. For example, the U.S. version is that the EU will buy U.S. weapons, while the EU says absolutely no such commitment was made — or could be made, as military procurement is determined by individual member countries. The U.S. also claims that the EU has promised to make a range of regulatory changes to benefit U.S. exports of food and agricultural products, along with changes to financial and tax barriers on digital industries. The EU says that's a hard no — 'We're not moving on our regulations. We're not moving on our rules. We're not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust,' Olaf Gill, the EU Commission's spokesperson for trade said. 'That will not form part of this agreement with the U.S.' Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. So it's all clear as mud. And what happens next for Canada? We'll find out, perhaps, on Friday. But more than anything else, move slowly and deliberately and in a calculated way, don't get rushed into a bad deal, and keep in mind that any deal is open to President Trump's penchant for exaggeration and fabrication. And for his unmatched ability to fail to live up to a signed commitment. And that's for the short term. The long term? Find new global customers. Ones that can be counted on to make an honestly negotiated deal and stick to it.
Edmonton Journal
10 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Alberta premier, chief electoral officer at odds over separation referendum question approval
Alberta's chief electoral officer is rebuffing calls from Premier Danielle Smith and her justice minister to reverse course and sign off on a proposed referendum question on separation. Article content On social media, Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery said earlier Tuesday that Albertans should be able to embark on gathering signatures 'without needless bureaucratic red tape or court applications slowing the process.' Article content Article content Article content Their remarks came after chief electoral officer Gordon McClure announced he had referred the proposed referendum question on separation to the courts so a judge could decide if it contravenes Canada's Constitution. Article content McClure, in a statement Tuesday, responded by saying he's merely following procedure and that the gravity of such a potential referendum invites judicial oversight and close inspection. Article content 'In seeking the opinion of the Court, the Chief Electoral Officer is fulfilling his duty under the Citizen Initiative Act in an independent, neutral and non-partisan manner,' he said. Article content The proposed question — which needs McClure's approval before the group behind it can start gathering the signatures necessary to get it on a ballot — seeks a yes or no answer to: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' Article content Article content Amery says in his post that since the province would ultimately be responsible for implementing any referendum result, the electoral officer's request for judicial scrutiny is premature. Article content Article content 'We encourage Elections Alberta to withdraw its court reference and permit Albertans their democratic right to participate in the citizen initiative process,' he wrote. Article content Smith's post said she agrees with Amery, but adds she believes in 'Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada.' Article content McClure, in his statement, said the question is 'serious and significant,' and that it has 'the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans.' Article content He also clarified that he's specifically looking for a judge to rule if the proposed question contravenes specific sections of the Constitution, including the rights set out in the Charter, the enforcement of those rights, and treaty rights.
Global News
10 hours ago
- Global News
Alberta premier's request for separation referendum question approval rebuffed
Alberta's chief electoral officer is rebuffing calls from Premier Danielle Smith and her justice minister to reverse course and sign off on a proposed referendum question on separation. On social media, Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery said earlier Tuesday that Albertans should be able to embark on gathering signatures 'without needless bureaucratic red tape or court applications slowing the process.' Their remarks came after chief electoral officer Gordon McClure announced he had referred the proposed referendum question on separation to the courts so a judge could decide if it contravenes Canada's Constitution. McClure, in a statement Tuesday, responded by saying he's merely following procedure and that the gravity of such a potential referendum invites judicial oversight and close inspection. 'In seeking the opinion of the Court, the Chief Electoral Officer is fulfilling his duty under the Citizen Initiative Act in an independent, neutral and non-partisan manner,' he said. Story continues below advertisement The proposed question — which needs McClure's approval before the group behind it can start gathering the signatures necessary to get it on a ballot — seeks a yes or no answer to: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' 1:52 Albertans speak about separatist sentiments on Canada Day Amery says in his post that since the province would ultimately be responsible for implementing any referendum result, the electoral officer's request for judicial scrutiny is premature. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'We encourage Elections Alberta to withdraw its court reference and permit Albertans their democratic right to participate in the citizen initiative process,' he wrote. Smith's post said she agrees with Amery, but adds she believes in 'Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada.' McClure, in his statement, said the question is 'serious and significant,' and that it has 'the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans.' Story continues below advertisement He also clarified that he's specifically looking for a judge to rule if the proposed question contravenes specific sections of the Constitution, including the rights set out in the Charter, the enforcement of those rights, and treaty rights. 2:56 Alberta's UCP government lowers required threshold for citizens to initiate referendum Smith and Amery's comments came after the group that submitted the question called the electoral officer's Monday decision a 'delay tactic.' Opposition NDP deputy leader Rakhi Pancholi, in a statement, accused Smith and Amery of going against the administration of a law they themselves set in order to appease separatists within the United Conservative Party. 'Yet again, Danielle Smith and her UCP government's authoritarian tendencies, corruption and incompetence are on full display,' Pancholi said. 'Albertans deserve better than a government hell-bent on tearing our country apart to save their political skins.' Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "Albertans deserve better than a government hell-bent on tearing our country apart to save their political skins." Story continues below advertisement Mitch Sylvestre with the Alberta Prosperity Project, whose name is attached to the application submitted to the electoral officer, has not responded to interview requests this week. Sylvestre has said he thinks interest among Albertans in holding a separation referendum increases with every speaking event his group organizes. 'The more people that hear what the message is, the more people that will be in favour,' he said in an interview last month. 1:51 One of Alberta's referendum petition pushes moving on to next step Provincial law says a hearing date must be scheduled within 10 days of the court referral, and McClure's office says he would have 30 days after a court ruling is issued to determine if the proposed referendum question meets other legislated requirements. If approved, Sylvestre and the Alberta Prosperity Project would need to collect 177,000 signatures in four months to put the question of Alberta separation on a ballot. Story continues below advertisement In June, the chief electoral officer approved a competing question that seeks to have Alberta make it official policy that the province will never separate from Canada. That petition, put forward by former Alberta Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, was approved before new provincial rules took effect that lowered the threshold for citizen-initiated referendums to get on ballots. 2:13 Alberta group proposes anti-separatism referendum: 'I'm thankful to this country' Amery said Tuesday the rule changes were intended to make the process 'broadly permissive' and that McClure's referral to the court didn't match the intent behind the changes.
