ICJ Says Polluters Can be Held Responsible for Climate Change
The court has ruled that developing nations have the right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Nations can also sue for compensation .
However, these decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and be supported by strong evidence linking the damage to climate change. . During the evidence-based hearings in December last year, the court heard from a number of different nations on ecological damage.
The ICJ opinion can also lead to countries that are the biggest emitters being sued for fossil fuel production. It also opens the door for smaller nations to present their cases.
The case was brought forward by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation , and backed by 130 countries, as many states have faced threats from climate change and harsh environmental conditions.
Vanuatu's coral reefs have recently suffered from a series of devastating natural disasters, rising sea levels, and climate change. This has resulted in widespread coral bleaching across the nation in what the government has referred to as ecocide.
The decision is non-binding but will be considered a legal benchmark in terms of environmental law. It is the first-ever opinion on climate change and ecological justice. It will serve as a standard for future court decisions.
This is one of the largest cases overseen by the ICJ, with judges having been through tens of thousands of pages of documents and heard over two weeks of oral arguments. Fifteen judges from the ICJ announced their decision on Wednesday.
The decision of the court is non-binding at the present time, but it has the potential to be used by national governments and international organisations. The judgment goes further than climate change agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and COP decisions.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press that this case 'makes this so important because 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.'
The case was first sent to court in 2023, and Vanuatu presented its testimony in December. Activists have insisted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is not enough, and in their opinion, the ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of International Law, which allows it to provide such an answer.'
Many similar court rulings have been made recently, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and to protect ecosystems. The European Court of Human Rights came to a similar conclusion.
This decision will outline the obligations of nations and potential penalties for the negative effects of ecocide. It will also seek to have ecocide seen as a crime under international law.
It will look at what states should be doing in terms of their human rights obligations and the impact of the sea-level rise and climate change. It will also look at the potential for action to be taken by bigger states, which are the largest contributors of Greenhouse Gas emissions, towards smaller , more affected states.
Action on climate change has become more vital in recent years as the effects have intensified exponentially over the last decade, with sea levels rising by an average of 4.3 centimetres a year, and an increase of 1.3 °C in global average temperature.
Pacific Island nations have been at the front line of climate change. As sea levels rise, their territory disappears. Several states are likely to have disappeared by 2050, destroying entire communities.
This decision and announcement mark a historic landmark for ecological accountability and environmental justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Morocco World
24-07-2025
- Morocco World
ICJ Says Polluters Can be Held Responsible for Climate Change
Rabat – The International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands handed down a ruling on climate justice and accountability on Wednesday. This follows a long, landmark legal case initiated by Vanuatu. The court has ruled that developing nations have the right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Nations can also sue for compensation . However, these decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and be supported by strong evidence linking the damage to climate change. . During the evidence-based hearings in December last year, the court heard from a number of different nations on ecological damage. The ICJ opinion can also lead to countries that are the biggest emitters being sued for fossil fuel production. It also opens the door for smaller nations to present their cases. The case was brought forward by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation , and backed by 130 countries, as many states have faced threats from climate change and harsh environmental conditions. Vanuatu's coral reefs have recently suffered from a series of devastating natural disasters, rising sea levels, and climate change. This has resulted in widespread coral bleaching across the nation in what the government has referred to as ecocide. The decision is non-binding but will be considered a legal benchmark in terms of environmental law. It is the first-ever opinion on climate change and ecological justice. It will serve as a standard for future court decisions. This is one of the largest cases overseen by the ICJ, with judges having been through tens of thousands of pages of documents and heard over two weeks of oral arguments. Fifteen judges from the ICJ announced their decision on Wednesday. The decision of the court is non-binding at the present time, but it has the potential to be used by national governments and international organisations. The judgment goes further than climate change agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and COP decisions. Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press that this case 'makes this so important because 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.' The case was first sent to court in 2023, and Vanuatu presented its testimony in December. Activists have insisted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is not enough, and in their opinion, the ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of International Law, which allows it to provide such an answer.' Many similar court rulings have been made recently, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and to protect ecosystems. The European Court of Human Rights came to a similar conclusion. This decision will outline the obligations of nations and potential penalties for the negative effects of ecocide. It will also seek to have ecocide seen as a crime under international law. It will look at what states should be doing in terms of their human rights obligations and the impact of the sea-level rise and climate change. It will also look at the potential for action to be taken by bigger states, which are the largest contributors of Greenhouse Gas emissions, towards smaller , more affected states. Action on climate change has become more vital in recent years as the effects have intensified exponentially over the last decade, with sea levels rising by an average of 4.3 centimetres a year, and an increase of 1.3 °C in global average temperature. Pacific Island nations have been at the front line of climate change. As sea levels rise, their territory disappears. Several states are likely to have disappeared by 2050, destroying entire communities. This decision and announcement mark a historic landmark for ecological accountability and environmental justice.
Morocco World
18-06-2025
- Morocco World
Tensions Rise in Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute
Officials from Cambodia and Thailand met in Phnom Penh on June 14 to discuss their conflicting territorial claims. This comes after a recent rise in regional tensions, and a violent clash that killed a Cambodian soldier on May 28. This meeting made little progress in terms of the disagreement between the two nations. On May 28, the two sides exchanged fire on an area referred to as the Emerald Triangle, as it is where the borders between Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos meet. Both sides said that they acted in self-defense and the tensions remain. Bangkok has since taken tighter control at all the country's border crossings and threatened to cut off electricity supplies to Cambodia. Cambodia responded stating that it was on 'Full Alert.' Hun Manet also announced that the country would stop buying Thai electric power, internet bandwidth and stop local television channels from displaying Thai films. Former leader and father of the Prime Minister Hun Sen gave an ultimatum to Thailand stating that unless the Thai government lifts the restrictions in 24 hours, he will 'implement throughout the border a ban on imports of fruit and vegetables.' The Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra stated that the country would not be bullied or threatened by Cambodian Pressure. Also, Shinawatra said this would damage the current diplomatic efforts to bring peace in the region. This comes after Cambodia sent the border crisis to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. With Hun Manet stating, 'Cambodia chooses a peaceful resolution based on international law through the ICJ mechanism for solving the border dispute.' Deputy Prime Minister Pak Sokhoon is seen holding a letter on social media which is reportedly for the Hague. Bangkok however, has consistently stated that it does not recognize the court's decision on the issue. Thailand has always stated its preference is to hold bilateral discussions to solve the conflict. There will be another meeting between the two countries at a conference in Thailand in September. Despite this, current tensions continue to rise and have the potential to destabilize the Southeast Asian region. This dispute dates back to the Indochina period of French colonial rule between 1887 and 1954, when the borders were put in place. Since independence, there has been consistent disagreement between the two sides on the 817km border. When Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot fell, he escaped the country into Thailand. In 2008, there was an outbreak of violence, which has continued sporadically since, resulting in the deaths of around 28 people.
Morocco World
04-06-2025
- Morocco World
Diplomacy: A New Bargaining Power Style
Rabat – It happens that viewers are mesmerized watching an epic scene that makes them whisper, smile, or feel outraged. A heated exchange between American President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on May 22, 2025, on the occasion of the latter's visit to Washington, can be included in this perspective. The visit of the South African head of state is highly anticipated as Pretoria is caught in the crossfire of the White House. Out of the blue, the American president gives the order to turn off the lights to broadcast images showing alleged persecutions of white farmers in South Africa. The American narrative about what is happening in South Africa is perceived in different ways by observers and experts in African affairs. Explanations are flying around. I'm going to mention a few of them for the purpose of getting the record straight. Some experts believe that the American president's behavior is an explicit response from the United States to the land expropriation law that the South African government adopted on January 23, 2025. This law directly targets white South African farmers who own 80% of the fertile lands. Elon Musk, of South African origin, would have pushed the new American administration to be merciless towards Pretoria. Other experts interpret the American president's behavior as a stigmatization of Pretoria's position towards Israel. Peoria initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice, accusing Tel Aviv of genocide in the Gaza Strip in 2023. Moreover, a small handful of observers perceive the American president's attitude as a barely concealed grievance regarding South Africa's double-standard position within the BRICS and other international forums. Open-Air Diplomatic Bargaining Paradigm However, this paper aims at a different objective. It will assess what might be called the entrenchment of a new diplomatic style that President Donald Trump has been performing so far. This started during his first term in 2017-2021. A style that comes with a new diplomatic bargaining power that disregards the old diplomatic niceties. This style aims (and succeeds) to achieve the prospective results by playing on the nerves of the guest to the White House. Several heads of state and government have experienced the magnitude and electric atmosphere in the Oval Office. In the realm of smart diplomacy, the appropriate key is to achieve the desired objectives and to do so in a commendable manner. It is in this perspective that one should observe another style, more sober, more straightforward, and without any doublespeak. It is not given enough spotlight, but it achieves the targeted objectives: The style of King Mohammed VI of Morocco . This assumption is not about comparing between the two leaders in the academic sense of the term, but about reflecting on diplomatic styles that evolve according to the changes in the international system. In this case, these styles embody both adaptation and firmness, flexibility and determination. 'The style is the man,' This statement is particularly relevant in this case. Let's recall the main arguments to help understand the matter dealt with. It is worth reminding that, as mentioned earlier, what the South African President has endured is not the first in its kind. Observers recall the scene in whereby President Donald Trump presents to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, on March 20, 2018, in front of cameras, large posters of the weapons sold to Saudi Arabia in 2017. He tries to persuade him to acquire more weapons. Far from the subtleties of a business deal for which the American President is known, the message is rather diplomatic and strategic. President Trump puts the conditions of the American security umbrella in favor of Saudi Arabia back on the table. This mechanism has been operational since the secret agreement in February 1945 between American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud aboard the USS Quincy cruiser in the Suez Canal. According to unconfirmed reports, the United States would guarantee the military security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in exchange for the latter's commitment to ensure the energy security of the United States and its Western allies. The impeccably staged performance by President Donald Trump in 2018 relied on two vectors of state interdependence paradigm: vulnerability and sensitivity. At the time, the internal situation in Saudi Arabia is hectic, and the reforms introduced by the Saudi Crown Prince are shaking up the regional political, security, and diplomatic landscape. It goes without saying that the purpose of Donald Trump's diplomatic exercise is to place his interlocutors in an uncomfortable position, pushing them either to rise to the challenge or to let the storm pass. The psychological dimension is crucial, as the American President enjoys making unpredictability his Trojan horse. The same scenario is implemented during the visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in February 2025 to Washington. President Trump draws his guest's attention that he no longer has any cards to play for the sake of negotiating a better solution in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia ( H. Hami, L'Europe daltonienne et la phobie d'un Yalta 2, MEDIAS24, March 14, 2025) . The Ukrainian President tries to argue by challenging the American Vice President James Davis Vance who intervenes to support his President's argument during the meeting. In vain. What interpretation can we make of this new style of open-air negotiation? One: Setting the rules of the game and initiating a new timetable for the conduct of future negotiations. This is a technique aimed at turning the page on candid previous relationships to shake up the status quo and express the need to find different alternatives. Two: Prioritizing issues in asymmetrical relationships where the minor actor is summoned to reconsider his priorities and adapt them to those of the major actor. Otherwise, he is urged to look elsewhere while bearing the consequences of his choice. Three: Clarifying positions by bringing in the media, the involved parties, and the public as witnesses. The exercise is an eloquent demonstration of manipulation in broad daylight. It is indirectly accompanied by the demystification of the alleged charismatic image of certain leaders in the eyes of their own people. Four: Challenging media outlets known for their sensational scoops. They are caught off guard and, through unyielding reporters, seek to avoid being sidelined. The scene of the reporter asking President Trump a tricky question about the story of the Boeing 747-8i (an impressive version of the jumbo-jet) offered by Qatar, to defuse the chaotic situation in which the South African President finds himself, tells more about biased (and dichotomous) relationships between media and politicians. Sword of Damocles Hoovering President Trump doesn't back down and calls the reporter incompetent for trying to divert the audience's and the public's attention from the ordeal he is subjecting his South African guest to. He confirms that he has no problem accepting such an offer. For the record, two Boeing 747-200Bs have been in service for the American presidency since 1990. President Trump intends to replace them. Five: Delineating the scope of visits by foreign heads of state and government to the White House. Unless they prepare well and come with a clear agenda negotiated in advance and in the finest details, they are advised to stay at home. For those who want to see the American President pay visit to them in order to polish their image, they are requested to prepare their checks and pay up. No free rides and no closed eyes without consequences either. Six: Repeating protocol premediated mistakes. Here's a weapon that never misses its target. It destabilizes the guests and puts them at odds with their narratives about the excellence of bilateral relations and their promising prospects. The mistake is being corrected, but the sword of Damocles remains in the backdrop. One of the premeditated mistakes is the one involving flags or pennants. Displaying an old flag or mistaking it for that of another country with which the visiting head of state has a conflict is one of the diplomatic tricks that hits the mark. Besides the required destabilization of guests, it somehow poisons the atmosphere of official meetings and downsizes expected results. Similarly, the error on the geographical and political map is a strong signal regarding the host country's position in relation to a regional conflict in which the country of the head of state visiting is involved. Seven: Justifying a political and diplomatic decision that does not seem to have been well understood. This stance is aimed at the so-called traditional allied countries that are reluctant to admit that their privileged status is being challenged. A new breeze is in the air, favoring realism and pragmatism, and they have to get it or leave the stage. Most of the criteria mentioned above can be witnessed, to some extent, in the style of Mohammed VI, King of Morocco. One: The use of the media to convey messages is done through appropriate media. King Mohammed VI very seldom speaks directly to the media. He seems to prefer not to engage in the question-and-answer game, which can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary subtleties. Two: Clarity in ideas and mastery in responding to urgent questions. The King uses a top-notch instrument, rational, clear, and straightforward: speeches. They are concise and get straight to the point. In terms of foreign policy, the speeches are clear, and the targeted actors are identified. Three: The deep care given to timing and context. The King makes it a cornerstone of the message he intends to deliver. This is a coherent approach in line with the outlined priorities. Four: The delineation of the scope of future negotiations with partners and other countries interested in serious relationships with Morocco. National interest comes first. No concessions regarding sovereignty in its political, diplomatic, economic, and security dimensions are accepted or imposed. Five: The accuracy and relevance of the political and strategic vision. In this respect, two speeches and messages are worth mentioning. Diplomacy: Transparency Means Business First, the speech delivered on April 20, 2016, on the occasion of the Morocco-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit. King Mohammed VI draws attention to the dangers facing the Arab world, particularly the attempts to change regimes and fragment Arab states. He warns against the new alliances aimed at creating conditions of disorder that threaten stability in the region and the viability of sovereign states. A year later, a coalition of five countries (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt) rises against Qatar. Once again, King Mohammed VI stands out with his mastery and vision, breaking the economic blockade imposed on this country by sending emergency food and medical aid in June 2017, as a sign of solidarity with the Qatari people. Morocco nonetheless maintains friendly relations with the members of the coalition, despite a brief cooling period that was quickly overtaken. Morocco hardly pays attention to the statements from certain circles in Doha who claim, ignoring the symbolism of the King's gesture, that their country receives no aid from anyone and that it would have paid for what it has received accordingly. Secondly, the speech in which King Mohammed VI draws the red lines beyond which Morocco cannot accept to promote its relations with both partners and adversaries. The royal speech of August 20, 2022, on the prism through which Morocco views its international environment, is a striking illustration of the King's diplomatic perception. This prism is assessed based on the position of friendly countries and other countries regarding the issue of the Moroccan Sahara. Six: The promotion of the peaceful approach to resolving bilateral inter-state conflicts. King Mohammed VI emphasizes at least five dialogue techniques along with the rejection of belligerent means that Morocco's adversaries are fond of. One: The outstretched hand aimed at identifying the actors who have a grudge against Morocco. These are sovereign state actors, members of the United Nations Organization, eager for double talk and fervent adepts of bureaucratic jargon. Two: The invitation addressed to the international community to appreciate Morocco's goodwill in contrast to the bad faith of its adversaries, state actors in the Euro-Mediterranean and Arab-African spaces. Three: The distinction and complementarity between domestic and foreign policy choices. The link between the two (Linkage politics) is fluid. It is expressed in accordance with the current political and diplomatic swings without deviating from the fundamental principles governing the two arenas. Four: Pragmatism and adaptation. Both are part of the framework designed to neutralize opponents and maintain a line of contact through international bodies. Two striking examples. On one hand, the proposal of the Autonomy Plan in 2007 to resolve the issue of the regional conflict over the Moroccan Sahara. On the other hand, the return of Morocco to the African Union in 2017. Five: The junction between national and international priorities in the same speech subtly conveys the same message. It is up to the intranational and international actors to grasp it at its true value and interpret it appropriately. President Donald Trump's style, through the slogan 'America First,' which grates on the United States' rival nerves, allows him to break the iceberg of doubt among his allies and adversaries. During his recent tour of the Gulf region, he returned to Washington with promises of investments amounting to trillions of dollars. Enough to leave political and economic planners and military strategists disoriented, most of whom are still navigating the uncertainties of the Cold War or Third World literature. The style of King Mohammed VI is equally productive of positive results. Since the speech on August 20, 2022, the list of countries that publicly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces or endorse the autonomy plan proposed since 2007 has expanded. The latest endorsement to date is from the United Kingdom, on June 1, 2025. One could quibble over the terminology used or the choice of syntax, however, one thing is certain: now, three permanent member countries of the United Nations Security Council support Morocco. They are on the list of 117 countries around the world that adopt the same position: the resolution of the regional conflict over the Sahara cannot but within (and only in) the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. The various scenes reviewed above normally take place behind closed doors. They lead to legendary quarrels, some of which are recounted in the memoirs of heads of state or foreign ministers. They describe threats, intimidation, and diplomatic harsh cacophonic language. In short, diplomacy evolves at the pace of the changes in the structure of the international system and the processes that unfold within it. It goes without saying that all means intended for the implementation of foreign policy choices are equal as long as they are creative, preemptive, and reactive in serenity and calm. By the same token, it is worth noting that post-COVID diplomacy will be more surrealistic for some and more realistic for others. Nevertheless, as long as diplomacy works to clarify perceptions instead of stifling them, it will have achieved its objective. Negotiation between sovereign states is now in the spotlight, with styles that sometimes confuse observers. However, these styles do not resemble the classical model of l'État spectacle . Similarly, diplomacy no longer fits into the all-encompassing manipulation scheme. Although diplomacy still keeps the classic channels open for less urgent matters, it is more direct. It is now dealt with in the open, performing some sort of new bargaining power style . Tags: Africa diplomacyDonald Trump
