Israel and Houthis exchange threats, and ICJ drops Sudan-UAE case
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
an hour ago
- Dubai Eye
Britain, India to sign landmark free trade pact during Modi visit
Britain and India will sign a landmark free trade agreement on Thursday during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sealing a deal to cut tariffs on goods from textiles to cars and allow more market access for businesses. The two countries concluded talks on the long-coveted free trade pact in May after three years of stop-start negotiations, with both sides hastening efforts to clinch a deal in the shadow of tariff turmoil sparked by US President Donald Trump. The agreement between the world's fifth and sixth largest economies aims to increase bilateral trade by 25.5 billion pounds by 2040. It will take effect after the British parliament and India's federal cabinet approve it, likely within a year. "Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said. The agreement will be signed during Modi's fourth visit to the UK since he took office in 2014. The leaders will also sign a strategic partnership covering areas such as defence and climate and strengthen co-operation on tackling crime. Under the trade agreement, tariffs on Scotch whisky will drop to 75 per cent from 150 per cent immediately, and then slide to 40 per cent over the next decade, according to the British government. On cars, India will cut duties to 10 per cent from over 100 per cent under a quota system that will be gradually liberalised. In return, Indian manufacturers are expected to gain access to the UK market for electric and hybrid vehicles, also under a quota system, Indian commerce ministry officials said. The ministry has said 99 per cent of Indian exports to Britain would benefit from zero duties under the deal, including textiles, while Britain will see reductions on 90 per cent of its tariff lines. The agreement represents Britain's most significant trade deal since it left the EU in 2020, though the projected boost to British economic output, of 4.8 billion pounds a year by 2040, is small compared to the country's gross domestic product of 2.6 trillion pounds in 2024.
Dubai Eye
an hour ago
- Dubai Eye
World Court says countries must address climate change threat
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. "Climate change treaties establish stringent obligations on states," judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failing to comply with them was a breach of international law. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He 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." Earlier, as he started reading the court's opinion, judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague 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. The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said 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. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.
Dubai Eye
an hour ago
- Dubai Eye
Brazil to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
Brazil is finalising its submission to join South Africa's genocide case against Israel's actions in Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday. South Africa filed a case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas fighters, Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps and shelters. Other countries – including Spain, Turkey and Colombia – have also sought to join the case against Israel. In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law "such as the annexation of territories by force" and it expressed "deep indignation" at violence suffered by the civilian population. Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention. The Israeli embassy in Brasilia said the Brazilian statement used "harsh words that do not fully portray the reality of what is currently happening in Gaza," while Brazil also "completely ignored" the role of Hamas within Gaza's reality. Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision, "The breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel ally the US. The Trump administration announced 50 per cent tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month. A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration told Reuters that Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will impact its relationship with Washington. The US has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both Democratic former President Joe Biden and Trump, a Republican. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut US financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case.
