Group of Seven Tries to Avoid Trump Conflict by Scrapping Joint Communique
In place of a single document, G-7 leaders are likely to release standalone joint leaders' statements on various topics, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
World Court Opens Door To Climate Change Lawsuits Against The U.S.
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice reviewed the financial liability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent climate change. After over two years of proceedings, the ICJ released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States could be liable to pay reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. While the opinion is non-binding, it will shape the future debate over climate change policy and lead to a wave of new lawsuits. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The UNGA posed two questions to the ICJ:Addressing the first question, large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, argued that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. Therefore, no additional legal obligations exist that may create a call for reparations or action not directly negotiated. Developing countries argued that the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement are a starting point, but that the impacts of climate change violate human rights under international common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, those countries that contribute to climate change, through the production of fossil fuels and GHG emissions, should pay reparations to low lying and developing nations that are 'adversely impacted' by climate change. The Court agreed, finding that the obligations to prevent climate change are found under customary international law. The Court stated, 'The customary duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, which requires States to 'use all the means at [their] disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in [their] territory, or in any area under [their] jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State', also applies to the climate system, which is an integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations." The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established that liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' The court addressed the two parts of the obligation and provided more context. Addressing the environmental harm to be prevented, the court stated: "For the duty to prevent to arise, there must be a risk of significant harm to the environment. Whether an activity constitutes a risk of significant harm depends on both the probability or foreseeability of the occurrence of harm and its severity or magnitude and should therefore be determined by, among other factors, an assessment of the risk and level of harm combined. The Court is of the view that a risk of significant harm may also be present in situations where significant harm to the environment is caused by the cumulative effect of different acts undertaken by various States and by private actors subject to their respective jurisdiction or control. "The determination of 'significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment' must take into account the best available science. The question whether any specific harm, or risk of harm, to a State constitutes a relevant adverse effect of climate change must be assessed in concreto in each individual situation." Looking at the due diligence requirement, the Court listed seven factors that should be considered when determining if a country took the necessary steps to prevent environmental harm. Generally, those are (1) laws or regulations to reduce GHG emissions; (2) availability of scientific information; (3) binding and non-binding agreements from COPs; (4) 'the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; (5) 'scientific information regarding the probability and the seriousness of possible harm; (6) risk assessments relating to GHG emissions; and (7) 'States' notification of and consultation in good faith with other States where planned activities within their jurisdiction or control create a risk of significant harm or significantly affect collective efforts to address harm to the climate system.' The opinion is a huge win for climate change activists. While it is non-binding, it is important to note that any disputes between countries will be heard before the International Court of Justice, the same court that issues the advisory opinion. It is also likely that some national courts will adopt the same legal interpretations. Expect litigation based on the opinion to begin within the next few weeks.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
France to become first G7 nation to recognise Palestine as a state
Emmanuel Macron has said France will recognise Palestine as a state later this year. The French president announced the major change of policy in a letter to the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, which Mr Macron also published online on Thursday evening. The French leader said he will make the formal announcement at the UN General Assembly, being held in September. France will become the first G7 member to recognise a Palestinian state. In his post explaining the decision, Mr Macron called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of the hostages and for much more humanitarian aid to reach those in the territory. But Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned Mr Macron for this, and said that it "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy". In a post on X on Thursday evening, Mr Netanyahu added that a "Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it". He warned:"Let's be clear: The Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel." But despite the condemnation from Israel, the move heaps pressure on France's allies such as the UK, and Sir Keir Starmer insisted tonight that he is "clear that statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people". However, the prime minister has resisted calls from within his own party to recognise Palestine immediately, as he believes this should come after a ceasefire is agreed, as part of the peace process in Gaza. "A ceasefire will put us on a path to the recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution which guarantees peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis," he said. Currently, half of the G20 recognise Palestine as a state, while nations including the UK, US, and Germany do not. But pressure has been growing on Sir Keir to change course, with senior Labour figures including the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, publicly calling for a change in government policy. Starmer: 'We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe' Just hours before Mr Macron's announcement, Sir Keir said he would be holding an "emergency call" with the leaders of France and Germany over what he termed the "humanitarian catastrophe" happening in Gaza. In some of the firmest language from the government yet, Sir Keir said that "the suffering and starvation unfolding in Gaza is unspeakable and indefensible". He went on to say that it has been "grave for some time", but that it has now "reached new depths and continues to worsen". Sir Keir said: "I will hold an emergency call with E3 partners tomorrow, where we will discuss what we can do urgently to stop the killing and get people the food they desperately need while pulling together all the steps necessary to build a lasting peace." The PM added that "we all agree" on the need for Israel to "change course and allow aid that is desperately needed to enter Gaza without delay". He wrote: "It is hard to see a hopeful future in such dark times. But I must reiterate my call for all sides to engage in good faith, and at pace, to bring about an immediate ceasefire and for Hamas to unconditionally release all hostages." Mr Macron pressed for recognition of Palestinian statehood in a recent address to the UK's Parliament earlier this month, where he said it was the "only path to peace". Across the globe, more than 140 countries recognise Palestine as a state. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the latest version. You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Allows Chevron to Restart Pumping Oil in Venezuela
(Bloomberg) — The US restored Chevron Corp.'s ability to pump oil in Venezuela, reversing a decision made just two months earlier when the Trump administration was seeking to exert more pressure on the regime of President Nicolas Maduro. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Full details weren't immediately clear for the authorization, which was described by people familiar with the matter. The move came around the same time Washington and Caracas brokered an agreement that saw the release of 10 Americans detained in Venezuela, while 250 Venezuelans who were imprisoned in El Salvador were returned to their home country. Key to the arrangement with Chevron is an assurance that no royalties or taxes will benefit the government of Venezuela's socialist leader, Nicolas Maduro, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter. The issue has forced President Donald Trump to navigate competing geopolitical and energy considerations. The president has taken a tough stance against Maduro, but he's also trying to keep a lid on energy prices, even as he pressures Iran to end its nuclear program and Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Like Venezuela, Iran and Russia are major oil producers, and Trump has threatened to step up sanctions against Moscow. Oil futures briefly pared some of their gains on news of the move by the administration, which raises the prospect of increased supplies coming onto a market that's already facing the threat of oversupply. Brent crude was 1% higher at $69.19 a barrel as of 2:39 p.m. New York time. A White House spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The Wall Street Journal first reported the move. 'Chevron conducts its business globally in compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government, including in Venezuela,' company spokesman Bill Turenne said in a statement. Chevron, which has had a presence in the country for more than a century, is the only major US oil company still there, and has been a vital lifeline for its battered economy. In 2022, the Biden administration granted the company a license authorizing it to keep producing and to resume crude exports, but limiting it from expanding. Following Trump's re-election, that license became a bargaining chip in the country's relationship with the US. Special envoy Ric Grenell and others in the administration pushed for a more transactional relationship with Maduro while Rubio encouraged a tough stance. Chevron's supporters have argued that without its presence there, the country's crude supplies would benefit China. Furthermore, energy security and keeping a lid on oil prices are priorities for Trump, and any new sanctions targeting countries buying Russian crude could lift prices. Still, the hawks prevailed in May when the US revoked Chevron's license to pump oil. Days later, it issued a stripped-down license allowing the company to remain in the country and conduct minimal maintenance on equipment. It's unclear how Venezuela would allow Chevron to restart production and shipments without paying tax. In April, state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA ordered Chevron to return almost 1 million barrels of crude due to what the country described as the 'impossibility and restrictions' of paying the government. A resumption of Chevron's exports of Venezuela's signature sludgy crude may come too late for US refiners to take full advantage. When the US driving season ends in about a month from now, refineries carry out preventive maintenance, reducing oil demand. The company's oil production, operated through joint ventures with PDVSA, totaled more than 240,000 barrels a day as of May 27, when the previous license ended. That accounted for about 25% of the oil-rich nation's overall output. The US imported about 250,000 barrels a day of Venezuelan crude, mostly for refineries on the Gulf Coast. Valero Energy Corp., the third-biggest US fuel maker, was the top user of Venezuelan oil at the end of 2024, followed by Chevron, which uses some of the crude at its refineries. —With assistance from Lucia Kassai. (Updates with additional reporting, context starting in fourth paragraph) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border How Hims Became the King of Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
