
The World Court throws f-bombs — and lots of 'em
It was the first time that the International Court of Justice had ruled on questions about climate change and its advisory opinion was wide-ranging. The judges unanimously agreed that countries must tackle fossil fuels — both burning and extraction — and that failing to curb climate change compromises human rights. The judges concluded that rich, historically high-polluting countries have a particular obligation to act and are responsible for the actions of corporations operating in their territories. And they found that failing to regulate and take meaningful action on climate change creates the legal basis for compensation and other kinds of 'reparations' to nations suffering climate damages.
In one of the F-bombs, the judges very clearly warned that, 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.'
Representatives from the most vulnerable nations were elated. "I didn't expect it to be this good," said Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu, standing on the steps of the Peace Palace in The Hague.
Known across the Pacific as 'Minister Ralph,' Regenvanu has been pushing climate change towards the docket of the World Court for years. But it wasn't his idea.
The idea started in the most improbable manner. It came from a group of students at the University of the South Pacific brainstorming strategies for a class assignment in 2019. The students decided to pursue the project beyond their campus in Fiji, dubbed themselves the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and began contacting all the Pacific Island Nations along with New Zealand and Australia.
They got a few polite brush-offs but no traction until Regenvanu responded, inviting them in for a meeting. After hearing them out, he decided that Vanuatu would support a campaign to get climate change in front of the World Court.
In a landmark ruling, World Court judges unanimously agreed that countries must tackle fossil fuels — both burning and extraction — and that failing to curb climate change compromises human rights.
'We've got to exhaust all possible avenues because we have no choice,' says Regenvanu. Six villages on four of its islands have already been relocated and the government is planning to relocate dozens more. Vanuatu has been fighting on all fronts. It was the first country to begin maneuvering for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been actively pressing for loss and damage mechanisms and serious carbon cuts by big polluters.
'It's our survival,' Regenvanu says. 'We need to make sure that there's nothing we miss in this fight.'
Over the past six years, the students organized to 'bring the world's biggest problem to the world's highest court.' They galvanized support and transformed their class project into a major global campaign. They mobilized former heads of state, artists and citizens around the world. By the time they got a resolution in front of the UN General Assembly in 2023, the polite brush-offs had turned into active support — the resolution had 18 nations as 'champions' while 132 others joined as co-sponsors.
The UN directed the ICJ to clarify countries' obligations in tackling climate change and the legal consequences they could face if they fail to meet them.
It was the biggest case the ICJ had ever undertaken. Starting last December, the 15 judges heard from almost 100 countries. They considered submissions from especially vulnerable nations, listened to testimony from victims of climate impacts and held sessions with scientists.
Meanwhile, countries like the US, Canada, China and Saudi Arabia argued they had no obligations to reduce carbon pollution beyond their voluntary pledges under the 2015 Paris Agreement and existing UN framework convention on climate change.
The ICJ rejected those arguments and delivered an opinion listing legal obligations that reach well beyond voluntary contributions and put countries on notice that they could be held liable for damages.
The ICJ president, Yūji Iwasawa, said climate change had already caused severe impacts on nature and people: 'These consequences underscore an urgent existential threat,' he said as he presented the opinion. 'The questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem. It's an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.'
Will it matter?
The whole notion of international law might sound like a cruel joke these days. But the World Court opinion has certainly energized communities at the frontlines and waterlines. And jurisprudence often builds in sedimentary fashion, solidifying in gradual layers of findings from lower courts and higher courts, international precedents and domestic judgements.
The opinion from the ICJ is its summary of the state of legal obligations, and is non-binding. And, of course, international judges are unable to enforce rulings themselves. But courts are increasingly weighing in on climate obligations. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that countries must protect the oceans from acidification. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights determined that a healthy climate is a human right.
Across the world there were at least 226 new climate cases filed in 2024. That brings the global tally to 2,967 cases filed to date, according to a June update from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate.
In one fascinating case this past May, a German court heard from a Peruvian farmer who sued the German utility RWE, arguing its carbon pollution was causing glacial floods in the Andes. The court dismissed the specific case but ruled that companies could be held liable for climate damages in civil proceedings and that 'the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions.'
The ICJ opinion, and specifically the F-bombs peppered throughout it, 'should send shivers down the spine' of the fossil fuel industry and governments that support it, said David Boyd, an associate professor with the University of British Columbia and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment.
'It's the clearest statement we've had from an international court that we have to get off fossil fuels,' Boyd said.
Although the ICJ advisory opinion is non-binding, it establishes clear guidance about the international obligations and other relevant laws which are binding on countries. The opinion charts legal avenues for countries to sue each other and be held liable for damages caused by fossil fuel pollution. And legal experts say it will serve as a 'crucial tool' for domestic courts.
The journey from a university classroom in Fiji to the highest court in the world shows that the most groundbreaking moments can originate from the most unexpected places. The Pacific Island students started with a class assignment and recast the landscape of international law. Thanks to a group of determined students, the world's legal arsenal just got significantly stronger. The F-bombs have been dropped, the law clarified, the repercussions conveyed.
Whatever happens next in the courtrooms of the world, the movements for climate justice have already been reenergized. "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice,' said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
10 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Cambodian and Thai officials meet in Malaysia to iron out ceasefire details
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Thai and Cambodia n officials met in Malaysia on Monday for the first round of cross-border committee talks since a tense ceasefire was brokered last week after five days of deadly armed border clashes that killed dozens and displaced over 260,000 people. The four-day General Border Committee meetings were initially due to be hosted by Cambodia, but both sides later agreed to a neutral venue in Malaysia, the annual chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which has mediated the halt in hostilities last month. The July 28 ceasefire followed economic pressure from President Donald Trump, who had warned the two warring nations that the U.S. would not conclude trade deals with them if the fighting persisted. Washington lowered tariffs on goods from the two countries from 36% to 19% on Aug. 1 following the truce. Monday's talks focused on ironing out details to avoid further clashes. Discussions of the decades-long competing territorial claims over the pockets of land near the shared border are not on the agenda. Thailand and Cambodia have been feuding neighbors for centuries, since both were mighty empires. In modern times, a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice awarding Cambodia the land on which the ancient Preah Vihear temple stands marked a new low point in relations, and other border territory remained claimed by both countries. Fighting erupted in 2011 at Preah Vihaer, after which the International Court of Justice in 2013 reaffirmed its earlier ruling, rankling Thailand. Relations deteriorated again sharply in May this year, when a Cambodian soldier was shot dead in a brief fracas in one of the disputed border zones, setting off diplomatic and trade sanctions, one against the other. Soon after two incidents last month in which Thai soldiers were wounded by land mines in disputed territory, for which Thailand blamed Cambodia, the two sides downgraded diplomatic relations and fighting broke out, each side blaming the other for starting the armed clashes. Thai Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Natthaphon Nakpanit is leading a delegation that includes representatives of all branches of the military, in addition to the police force and the ministries of foreign affairs, interior and defense, as well as the National Security Council. Thai military spokesperson Rear Admiral Surasant Kongsiri in Bangkok said the main session of the General Border Committee on Thursday would include observers from Malaysia, the United States and China. Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Tea Seiha is leading Cambodia's delegation, accompanied by armed forces commander Gen. Vong Pisen. Despite the truce, tensions have persisted as both countries organized tours of the former battle areas for foreign diplomats and other observers to highlight damage allegedly caused by the other side. The two countries also continue to accuse each other of having violated international humanitarian laws with attacks on civilians and the use of illegal weapons.

Globe and Mail
13 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, Aug. 4: ‘I see Mark Carney following in the steps of Brian Mulroney'
Re 'Carney, the foreign-policy risk-taker' (Aug. 1): I see Mark Carney following in the steps of Brian Mulroney, who sanctioned South Africa to help end apartheid. We know that it helped then, and I believe Mr. Carney's decision will help Palestinians today. I have worked in the Palestinian territories assisting in their past elections. I got to know the area and the people. For the past 20 years, I have been hoping and praying that democratic countries in the Western world would give support to people who have been terribly abused for much too long, by too many powerful nations. Time for justice to prevail. G.A. Teske Strathcona County, Alta. Re 'Is China a better trading partner than Trump's America?' (July 31): China has taken the lead globally in electric vehicles, even recently figuring out how to recharge them in about five minutes. Yet Chinese EVs are called 'state-subsidized, inexpensive spy machines on wheels.' Really? Compared to the monopoly Canada has allowed the United States on everything web-related, from Google to Facebook to computers to smartphones, all of which makes a fortune out of mining our personal data? We already have spy machines in every Canadian pocket, going everywhere we go, but they're not Chinese, they're not cheap and they sure don't help reduce the impact of climate change. Marsha Copp Toronto Referencing China and the Tiananmen Square massacre to discourage trade with the Middle Kingdom ignores the behaviour of the United States in my lifetime: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and other disastrous imperialist adventures resulting in millions of lives lost – and now they threaten us. As for China's 'spy machines on wheels,' Canadians using U.S. software might wonder how, when they mention a word like 'hat' in an e-mail, ads for hats can appear on screen minutes later. Open thine eyes: Our neighbour has been spying on us for years. Don McLellan Vancouver Re 'The International Court of Justice's statement on fossil fuels puts Carney in a tough spot' (July 28): This makes it sound like the International Court of Justice decision is the worst thing that could happen to Mark Carney and his nation-building agenda. I think this decision just helped him shorten the list of projects that meet criteria. There are lots of projects that can be great for Canada, such as electric interties between provinces and wind and solar power projects. These projects would not only be nation-building, they would also supply the clean energy we need for a more livable world. And now that clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, we would also save money. A win on many levels. Let's move forward in a direction that aligns with international law, supports climate action and saves money. Cathy Page Calgary Re 'Hard place' (Letters, July 30): A letter-writer argues that the Canadian public needs to be better educated on the role of oil in our economy. Getting off it quickly would certainly have significant economic costs, but the overall cost to the economy can be a good deal less than losses to the industry itself. For example, oil resources such as capital and labour would move to other industries and be productive there. Even getting off oil rapidly would not 'rip our economy to shreds.' More likely it would have a negative impact of 1 to 2 per cent of GDP in the short run, and less in the longer run. (In 2022, oil and gas accounted for 3.2 per cent of Canada's GDP). I also see no reason to get off oil rapidly. Economists who bear the environmental implications in mind generally propose a gradual shrinkage. Albert Berry Toronto Re 'How Norway cracked the electric-vehicle code' (Aug. 1): I calculate that electric vehicles are already more economical than others in Canada. Even though an EV's purchase price may be higher than an equivalent fossil fuel vehicle, for most drivers that difference may be reduced to zero in a few years. An EV's fuel and maintenance costs are a small fraction of those of other cars. While EV owners are erasing the initial cost difference, they're also driving a non-polluting car with the time-saving convenience of charging at home. Paul Rapoport Member, Electric Vehicle Society; Hamilton Re 'For some of Canada's most prestigious university programs, mid-90s grades are not enough' (July 30): Absent a standardized test to measure academic merit, such as the U.S. SATs, there is no means by which to effectively compare the marks of students at one high school with those of another, let alone one teacher with another at the same school. The practice of grading on a bell curve – caving to the pressure of individual parents, the pleas of students and the inherent discretion of teachers – further makes the comparison of marks a mug's game. Meanwhile, standardized tests are used for many postgraduate programs (LSATs, MCATs) to level the playing field, in recognition of the inability to compare undergraduate marks in different areas from different universities. Standardized testing should be a requirement if Ontario is to use Bill 33 to determine merit. Richard Austin Toronto I graduated in 1969 from Jarvis Collegiate in Toronto, considered then to be one of the city's top schools. My graduating class of 120-plus students had only 10 Ontario scholars – a student with a graduating average of 80 (yes, 80) or more – and only one averaged over 90. The financial reward for Ontario Scholars was terminated years later, after grade inflation rendered the distinction meaningless. Most students have a shock when they first encounter university grading, where a mark of 70 is average, 90 is a real distinction, rarely given, and students can actually fail – many of them, in fact. At the University of Ottawa, the highest possible grade is 10, or an A+ covering the 90-to-100 range. In my 42-year career, I only once saw a student graduate with a 10 average in my department. In other words, all others, including many really outstanding ones, had averages below 90. William Hallett Emeritus professor, department of mechanical engineering, University of Ottawa Recently, the Toronto District School Board touted its several graduates with 100 averages. How do you get 100 on, say, a course in English literature? I venture to say William Shakespeare and W. B. Yeats would expect to fall short of that, and be appalled some teacher saw fit to award a perfect score to a teenage student. Perhaps the spirits of James Joyce, William S. Burroughs and Henry Miller can be summoned to inject some awareness of the impossibility of perfection. Barry Stagg Toronto Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@


National Observer
5 days ago
- National Observer
BC's backing of Cedar LNG courts financial liability
The BC government's $200-million subsidy to electrify the Cedar LNG project is drawing sharp criticism as a fossil fuel handout and an unwise investment that also opens up potential legal risks after a new International Court of Justice ruling. Premier David Eby and Energy Minister Adrian Dix said Monday the public funding will go to the electrification of the Cedar LNG terminal, a floating liquefied natural gas facility co-owned by the Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corporation near Kitimat that is expected to come online in 2028. The money will support the building of a new 287-kilovolt transmission line, substation, distribution lines and nearshore electrification so the facility won't be powered by natural gas — an original condition for getting provincial approval for the project. Powering the plant with clean electricity will bolster the economy at risk from 'reckless decisions in the White House,' Eby said in a statement, adding the project would create jobs, generate revenue and emit less carbon pollution than other similar projects. Up to 500 jobs will be created at the peak of Cedar LNG's construction and 100 people will have full-time jobs when it's up and running, according to the province. Elected Chief Maureen Nyce of the Haisla Nation said the provincial funding allows the Nation to meet its goal of delivering a project with 'the lowest possible carbon footprint' while advancing prosperity and development 'on our own terms and in accordance with our values.' 'When Indigenous communities lead projects as owners, as is the case with Cedar LNG, we are able to ensure that these projects are developed in the most environmentally responsible manner, while generating revenues that enable us to protect our way of life and build long-term prosperity,' Nyce said. Critics say the province's $200 million subsidy of the fossil fuel project could put taxpayers on the hook for additional legal and economic risks in the wake of a landmark international ruling. But this isn't the first time the project has received government support and critics question whether it will be the last. BC's investment in Cedar LNG follows another $200 million gifted to Cedar LNG by Prime Minister Mark Carney's government just prior to the election. Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of BC who specializes in climate policy, categorized the funding as a fossil fuel subsidy that will accelerate the climate crisis — given that most carbon pollution from the export project will be generated when the gas is burned in other countries. The province has framed the funding as a commitment to Indigenous economic reconciliation and has suggested Cedar's 'clean LNG' will replace dirtier global alternatives. However, Harrison questioned whether the more costly Cedar LNG will be competitive in a global market that is already saturated with natural markets are oversupplied, prices drop — and high-cost producers like BC are disadvantaged, she added. 'My worry is this may be just the first in a series of subsidies needed to keep all LNG projects afloat,' she said. Harrison questioned why Cedar LNG, with backers that had already promised to electrify and finance the project, would need public funding unless it wasn't viable without government support. 'There are reasons to question the long-term competitiveness of any new LNG investments, not just in Canada, but elsewhere,' Harrison said, noting the most recent International Energy Agency forecast predicts a global LNG glut likely to continue into the 2030s — which will fuel lower prices and increased financial risks for newer projects. 'We need to be choosing investments and approving projects even without taxpayer investments that are the most viable for the long-term,' she said. Using public funds to establish LNG projects is a slippery slope with the risk they will need to continually be propped up by tax dollars. By continuing investment in new LNG projects and supporting increased oil and gas, the provincial and federal government may also find they'll have to pay billions of dollars in compensation to other countries bearing the brunt of change, according to a recent landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice. Rich, oil-producing states like Canada or jurisdictions like BC that don't act to curb climate pollution and continue to subsidize, licence and boost production will be vulnerable to legal claims around climate harms in the future, said Jens Wieting, senior policy and climate advisor with Sierra Club BC. 'We have the poorest track record among the G7 countries when it comes to reducing pollution and meeting climate targets,' he said. 'I would expect that jurisdictions like Canada and BC are particularly at risk of becoming liable.' BC's parallel electrification efforts for heat pumps and transportation — alongside support for large fossil fuel infrastructure — create a conflict over limited clean energy resources, Wieting added. 'We need to prioritize electricity for solutions, not pollution.'