ICJ to deliver landmark climate ruling
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet.
Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world.
Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases.
"It will be the compass the world needs to course correct," said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.
"It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet," said Prasad.
But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it.
- 'ACTS AND OMISSIONS' -
The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions.
First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions?
Second, what are the legal consequences for states which "by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?"
The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations.
This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean.
- 'DAVID VS GOLIATH' -
In what was termed a "David versus Goliath" battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case.
The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions -- the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance.
"This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity," said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings.
"The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet," he told the 15-judge panel.
Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary.
US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was "the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change".
Taylor urged the court "to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime".
Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit.
"The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime," said Luther Rangreji.
The United States under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement.
- 'WATERY GRAVES' -
But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects.
"As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop.
"This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves," said John Silk from the Marshall Islands.
After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather.
The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more.
"This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity," said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu.
"Our people... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create.
"They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening
Zamikhaya Maseti | Published 9 hours ago Zamikhaya Maseti On August 1, 2025 , South Africa will enter a zone of strategic economic pain, engineered not by global market fluctuations, but by the vengeful hands of conservative economic nationalism. The United States, under the reins of Donald J. Trump, will impose a 30 per cent tariff on all goods and products exported from South Africa to the American markets. This is not a policy of trade readjustment; it is a geoeconomic act of hostility. The justification, wrapped in the language of " reciprocity, " is in reality a strategic blow aimed at disciplining South Africa's geopolitical posture and diplomatic boldness. Trump's economic nationalism, which sits at the ideological centre of Conservative Republicanism, is not merely inward-looking. It is punitive, retaliatory, and profoundly regressive. It has shaken the global trade architecture, not to recalibrate it, but to bend it in favour of America's new mercantilist order. This doctrine does not merely target trade imbalances; it punishes defiance. South Africa is now paying the price for standing on principle, particularly for its posture on Palestine and its landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It is clear, painfully so, that South Africa is being economically strangled not for what it trades, but for what it believes. Some Western analysts, ever keen to defend the status quo, will dispute this. They will search for economic rationality in an act that is blatantly political. Let them continue their intellectual gymnastics. This moment calls for clarity, not politeness. The truth is that Trump's worldview is transactional and tribal, and in that logic, South Africa has become collateral. That South Africa is seen as an irritant in Washington's new world order is not coincidental; it is structural. And let it be said without fear, Trump's policy on South Africa is influenced not only by economic calculations but by the mythologies peddled by actors like AfriForum and Elon Musk, who have exported the lie of white genocide into America's political bloodstream. But this is not the time for victimhood, nor is it the moment for diplomatic lamentation. It is time for South Africa to do some difficult thinking and embrace a new, muscular pragmatism . Diplomatic efforts, however noble, are unlikely to change Trump's position. Minister Parks Tau and his diplomatic team may work tirelessly, but they are facing a political machine that does not respond to nuance. Trump's narrative is fixed , and in that narrative, South Africa is an unfriendly trading partner whose tariffs harm American interests. He argues, correctly or not, that South African import duties and market access protocols are unfavourable to US goods. That argument, however flawed, resonates with his domestic base, and therefore it will stand. The United States will not blink , and it will not backtrack . Thus, it is not sufficient for South Africa to hope against hope; it must respond. Minister Parks Tau, trade envoys, and industrial leaders must now do the hard intellectual and strategic labour of repositioning the country's economic posture. Nowhere is this urgency more pressing than in the automotive sector, a critical node of South Africa's manufacturing ecosystem. This sector is not only a source of direct jobs; it sustains a complex web of downstream industries, from component manufacturing and logistics to retail and after-market services. It is here that the 30 per cent tariff will hit hardest, and it is here that innovation, not inertia, must be summoned . The sector must accept that the American market , for the foreseeable future, has lost ground. The time has come for South Africa to pivot decisively toward other markets, especially those aligned with its economic diplomacy ambitions. The first option lies in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the single largest integrated market on the continent , and the largest globally by number of countries. With over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, the AfCFTA offers South Africa a natural and politically friendly trading space. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, presents high-value demand for affordable, durable automotive products, especially among its emerging middle classes and youthful populations. Research shows that more than 60 per cent of the region's population is under the age of 25, representing a long-term demand curve that is not speculative, but empirically grounded. Yet, South African companies have been slow to leverage this opportunity. There remains an unhealthy fog of Afro-pessimism and the lingering delusion of South African exceptionalism. These intellectual blindfolds must be cast aside . Africa is not a dumping ground; it is a destination for growt h. The automotive industry must shift from waiting for trade to come to it and instead begin creating strategic partnerships in East, West, and Central Africa. This includes setting up joint ventures, service hubs, and low-cost satellite assembly plants across regional economic communities. The second and equally strategic option lies in a new industrial partnership with China. The presence and popularity of Chinese-made vehicles in the South African domestic market has reached a saturation point. They are competitively priced, technologically competent, and now represent a serious challenge to traditional brands. But if left unmanaged, this trend could lead to the hollowing out of South Africa's manufacturing base. South Africa must use its BRICS membership as a strategic lever. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal. Chinese companies should be invited to co-invest in high-tech manufacturing and assembly infrastructure in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal. This could take the form of co-assembled production alongside legacy OEMs like Mercedes-Benz SA, which now face looming layoffs. The South African government must incentivise this localisation through targeted industrial policy, special economic zones, and technology-sharing frameworks. In this regard, the principle of ' South Africa Inc ' must be revived with urgency. Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa Inc refers to the coordinated use of economic diplomacy, government strategy, and business networks to advance national economic interests abroad. Its objectives are to integrate South African companies into key markets, attract strategic investment, and drive regional industrialisation. In Southern Africa, this approach has already delivered notable success, such as increased South African corporate presence in Zambia, Namibia, and Mozambique, particularly in retail, finance, and energy sectors. Now is the time to bring the automotive sector under this umbrella. South African diplomatic missions across Africa and Asia must be tasked explicitly with facilitating market entry, assembling policy frameworks, and brokering industrial partnerships for local manufacturers. This is not merely export promotion; it is the safeguarding of South Africa's industrial sovereignty. In conclusion, the Trump tariffs should not be seen as the end of a trade relationship, but as the beginning of a deeper national reawakening. The South African government must retool its economic diplomacy, its industrial incentives, and its regional vision. The automotive sector, in particular, must abandon old comfort zones and rise to this moment with the courage of imagination and the rigour of strategy. What is at stake is more than exports; it is the future of South Africa's industrial identity. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Qatar Brokered DRC Peace Deal a Bittersweet Moment for Africa
Qatar's chief negotiator Mohammed al-Khulaifi (centre) observes peace mediator Sumbu Sita Mambu, a high representative of the head of state in the Democratic Republic of Congo (left) and Rwanda-backed armed group M23 executive secretary Benjamin Mbonimp (right as they sign a ceasefire deal in Doha on July 19, 2025. Image: AFP Dr. Sizo Nkala The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the rebel group, M23, signed a Declaration of Principles in Support of a Pathway to a Comprehensive Peace Agreement on the 19th of July under the mediation of Qatar. The DRC government forces and the M23 have been locked in an armed conflict in eastern DRC since 2021. The conflict intensified at the beginning of 2025, which saw the M23 rebels, allegedly supported by Rwanda, go on the offensive and seize huge swathes of territory, including the major cities of Goma and Bukavu, the capitals of North and South Kivu provinces, respectively, including two major airports. About 7000 people have reportedly lost their lives, and over a million more have suffered displacement as a result of the escalation. The latest agreement is a major step towards the resolution of a conflict that has defied continental and regional diplomatic and military intervention. The DRC President, Felix Tshisekedi, had vowed never to meet with the M23 leaders. Both the Luanda and Nairobi processes failed to bring the two parties under one roof for negotiations. According to the agreement, the two parties agreed to commit to a permanent ceasefire that will see the cessation of attacks, curbing of hate propaganda, and a freeze on seizing new territories. A verification mechanism will be set up to help with the implementation of the ceasefire. The parties further agreed to an exchange of prisoners and detainees, restoration of state authority over the entire DRC territory, the safe return of displaced people, and protecting the civilian population in cooperation with the United Nations mission. Most importantly, the warring parties undertook to participate in direct negotiations for a peace agreement on the 8th of August with a view to reaching and signing a comprehensive agreement by the 18th of August. Such an agreement would be in line with the terms of the peace deal signed at the end of June between the DRC and Rwanda in Washington. The latest agreement was necessary for the Washington deal to work. Some of the terms of the document signed in Washington included a cessation of hostilities; demobilisation, disarmament, and reintegration of members of rebel groups in the DRC security forces, and the setting up of a Joint Security Coordination Mechanism within 30 days. The purpose of the Joint Security Coordination Mechanism is to monitor and verify the disarmament and demobilisation of the rebel groups. The 30-day deadline for its set-up is almost up. While the negotiations between the DRC government and the M23 may, in their own way, take the peace process forward, the necessity of an agreement between them coming after the deal between the governments of the DRC and Rwanda is debatable. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ It is one of the worst-kept secrets that the Rwandan government, led by President Paul Kagame, is the principal of the M23. Reports by the United Nations have confirmed that the Rwandan government is not only funding but also sending its forces to fight alongside the M23 in eastern DRC. As such, Rwanda's signing of the Washington peace deal with the DRC government in June left the M23 with no other option but to toe the line of its benefactor. Hence, these negotiations feel like a duplication. These rather damp-squib negotiations may serve the purpose of perpetuating the illusion that the M23 is an independent entity. The M23 itself had mounted a weak protest against the Washington peace deal, saying that they would not observe or respect an agreement they were not party to. Further, this new layer of negotiations does little to lessen the formidable challenges of implementing a peace deal in the DRC. There is still no credible enforcement mechanism for a ceasefire or disarmament and demobilisation process. The absence of a transparent and effective enforcement mechanism will put the warring parties in a prisoners' dilemma scenario where the most rational action would be non-cooperation. The lack of trust and the mutual hatred between the leaders of the two camps will be an issue that will undermine compliance with the terms of the deal. Previous ceasefire agreements have not been able to stop the two sides from attacking each other. There are no assurances that this one is going to be an exception. Importantly, the latest developments beg the question as to why Qatar, a small state in the Middle East, was able to accomplish what the African Union-sanctioned Luanda process and the East African Community-sanctioned Nairobi process found frustratingly elusive. Why is it that the DRC government and the M23 were willing to sit around the negotiating table in Doha and not in Luanda or Nairobi? How was a continental body with 54 member states representing 1.5 billion people upstaged and outshone by a country of less than 3 million people? These questions make this development a bittersweet moment. While the prospects of real peace in eastern DRC are certainly a cause for celebration, it is troubling that the AU seemingly has less gravitas than Qatar. * Dr. Sizo Nkala is a Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg's Centre for Africa-China Studies. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal, says the writer. Image: GCIS Zamikhaya Maseti On August 1, 2025, South Africa will enter a zone of strategic economic pain, engineered not by global market fluctuations, but by the vengeful hands of conservative economic nationalism. The United States, under the reins of Donald J. Trump, will impose a 30 per cent tariff on all goods and products exported from South Africa to the American markets. This is not a policy of trade readjustment; it is a geoeconomic act of hostility. The justification, wrapped in the language of "reciprocity," is in reality a strategic blow aimed at disciplining South Africa's geopolitical posture and diplomatic boldness. Trump's economic nationalism, which sits at the ideological centre of Conservative Republicanism, is not merely inward-looking. It is punitive, retaliatory, and profoundly regressive. It has shaken the global trade architecture, not to recalibrate it, but to bend it in favour of America's new mercantilist order. This doctrine does not merely target trade imbalances; it punishes defiance. South Africa is now paying the price for standing on principle, particularly for its posture on Palestine and its landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It is clear, painfully so, that South Africa is being economically strangled not for what it trades, but for what it believes. Some Western analysts, ever keen to defend the status quo, will dispute this. They will search for economic rationality in an act that is blatantly political. Let them continue their intellectual gymnastics. This moment calls for clarity, not politeness. The truth is that Trump's worldview is transactional and tribal, and in that logic, South Africa has become collateral. That South Africa is seen as an irritant in Washington's new world order is not coincidental; it is structural. And let it be said without fear, Trump's policy on South Africa is influenced not only by economic calculations but by the mythologies peddled by actors like AfriForum and Elon Musk, who have exported the lie of white genocide into America's political bloodstream. But this is not the time for victimhood, nor is it the moment for diplomatic lamentation. It is time for South Africa to do some difficult thinking and embrace a new, muscular pragmatism. Diplomatic efforts, however noble, are unlikely to change Trump's position. Minister Parks Tau and his diplomatic team may work tirelessly, but they are facing a political machine that does not respond to nuance. Trump's narrative is fixed, and in that narrative, South Africa is an unfriendly trading partner whose tariffs harm American interests. He argues, correctly or not, that South African import duties and market access protocols are unfavourable to US goods. That argument, however flawed, resonates with his domestic base, and therefore it will stand. The United States will not blink, and it will not backtrack. Thus, it is not sufficient for South Africa to hope against hope; it must respond. Minister Parks Tau, trade envoys, and industrial leaders must now do the hard intellectual and strategic labour of repositioning the country's economic posture. Nowhere is this urgency more pressing than in the automotive sector, a critical node of South Africa's manufacturing ecosystem. This sector is not only a source of direct jobs; it sustains a complex web of downstream industries, from component manufacturing and logistics to retail and after-market services. It is here that the 30 per cent tariff will hit hardest, and it is here that innovation, not inertia, must be summoned. The sector must accept that the American market, for the foreseeable future, has lost ground. The time has come for South Africa to pivot decisively toward other markets, especially those aligned with its economic diplomacy ambitions. The first option lies in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the single largest integrated market on the continent, and the largest globally by number of countries. With over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, the AfCFTA offers South Africa a natural and politically friendly trading space. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, presents high-value demand for affordable, durable automotive products, especially among its emerging middle classes and youthful populations. Research shows that more than 60 per cent of the region's population is under the age of 25, representing a long-term demand curve that is not speculative, but empirically grounded. Yet, South African companies have been slow to leverage this opportunity. There remains an unhealthy fog of Afro-pessimism and the lingering delusion of South African exceptionalism. These intellectual blindfolds must be cast aside. Africa is not a dumping ground; it is a destination for growth. The automotive industry must shift from waiting for trade to come to it and instead begin creating strategic partnerships in East, West, and Central Africa. This includes setting up joint ventures, service hubs, and low-cost satellite assembly plants across regional economic communities. The second and equally strategic option lies in a new industrial partnership with China. The presence and popularity of Chinese-made vehicles in the South African domestic market has reached a saturation point. They are competitively priced, technologically competent, and now represent a serious challenge to traditional brands. But if left unmanaged, this trend could lead to the hollowing out of South Africa's manufacturing base. South Africa must use its BRICS membership as a strategic lever. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal. Chinese companies should be invited to co-invest in high-tech manufacturing and assembly infrastructure in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal. This could take the form of co-assembled production alongside legacy OEMs like Mercedes-Benz SA, which now face looming layoffs. The South African government must incentivise this localisation through targeted industrial policy, special economic zones, and technology-sharing frameworks. In this regard, the principle of 'South Africa Inc' must be revived with urgency. Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa Inc refers to the coordinated use of economic diplomacy, government strategy, and business networks to advance national economic interests abroad. Its objectives are to integrate South African companies into key markets, attract strategic investment, and drive regional industrialisation. In Southern Africa, this approach has already delivered notable success, such as increased South African corporate presence in Zambia, Namibia, and Mozambique, particularly in retail, finance, and energy sectors. Now is the time to bring the automotive sector under this umbrella. South African diplomatic missions across Africa and Asia must be tasked explicitly with facilitating market entry, assembling policy frameworks, and brokering industrial partnerships for local manufacturers. This is not merely export promotion; it is the safeguarding of South Africa's industrial sovereignty. In conclusion, the Trump tariffs should not be seen as the end of a trade relationship, but as the beginning of a deeper national reawakening. The South African government must retool its economic diplomacy, its industrial incentives, and its regional vision. The automotive sector, in particular, must abandon old comfort zones and rise to this moment with the courage of imagination and the rigour of strategy. What is at stake is more than exports; it is the future of South Africa's industrial identity. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
