Australia faces ‘inescapable' legal risk after historic climate ruling

World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry

ABC News

2 hours ago

ABC News

World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry

A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

Sydney Morning Herald

3 hours ago

Sydney Morning Herald

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.

The Age

3 hours ago

The Age

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.

Australia faces ‘inescapable' legal risk after historic climate ruling

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

Australia faces ‘inescapable' legal risk after historic climate ruling

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem

Get Started Now: Download the App