Top U.N. court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change.
"States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.
The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met."
"I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatuan Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out.
Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said, "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies.
"This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond."
Human right to clean environment
Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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.
Under international law, he said, "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second-biggest current emitter, behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.
Vanuatuan Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on Wednesday. |
AFP-JIJI
"As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the opinion.
With skepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion.
"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.
Historically, rich industrialized countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem.
Political and legal weight
The court's opinion is nonbinding, but it 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.
Harj Narulla, a barrister specializing in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued.
"These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said.
Two questions
Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions: 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?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above preindustrial 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
16 hours ago
- Japan Times
Europe is breaking its reliance on American science
European governments are taking steps to break their dependence on critical scientific data the United States historically made freely available to the world, and are ramping up their own data collection systems to monitor climate change and weather extremes. The effort marks the most concrete response from the European Union and other European governments so far to the U.S. government's retreat from scientific research under the administration of President Donald Trump. Since his return to the White House, Trump has initiated sweeping budget cuts to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies, dismantling programs conducting climate, weather, geospatial and health research, and taking some public databases offline. As those cuts take effect, European officials have expressed increasing alarm that — without continued access to U.S.-supported weather and climate data — governments and businesses will face challenges in planning for extreme weather events and long-term infrastructure investment. In March, more than a dozen European countries urged the European Commission to move fast to recruit American scientists who lose their jobs to those cuts. Asked for comment on NOAA cuts and the EU's moves to expand its own collection of scientific data, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said Trump's proposed cuts to the agency's 2026 budget were aimed at programs that spread "fake Green New Scam 'science,'" a reference to climate change research and policy. "Under President Trump's leadership, the U.S. is funding real science again,' Rachel Cauley, an OMB spokesperson, said via email. European officials said that — beyond the risk of losing access to data that is bedrock to the world's understanding of climate change and marine systems — they were concerned by the general U.S. pullback from research. "The current situation is much worse than we could have expected," said Sweden's State Secretary for Education and Research Maria Nilsson. "My reaction is, quite frankly, shock." The Danish Meteorological Institute described the U.S. government data as "absolutely vital" — and said it relied on several data sets to measure including sea ice in the Arctic and sea surface temperatures. "This isn't just a technical issue, reliable data underpins extreme weather warnings, climate projections, protecting communities and ultimately saves lives," said Adrian Lema, director of the DMI's National Center for Climate Research. Officials from eight European countries, who said their governments were undertaking reviews of their reliance on U.S. marine, climate and weather data, were interviewed. Officials from seven countries — Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden — described joint efforts now in the early stages to safeguard key health and climate data and research programs. Leaning on the U.S. As a priority, the EU is expanding its access to ocean observation data, a senior European Commission official said. Those data sets are seen as critical to the shipping and energy industries as well as early storm warning systems. Over the next two years, the senior official said, the EU plans to expand its own European Marine Observation and Data Network which collects and hosts data on shipping routes, seabed habitats, marine litter and other concerns. The initiative was aimed at "mirroring and possibly replacing U.S.-based services," the senior European Commission official said. Europe is particularly concerned about its vulnerability to U.S. funding cuts to NOAA's research arm that would affect the Global Ocean Observing System, a network of ocean observation programs that supports navigation services, shipping routes and storm forecasting, a second EU official said. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center in Miami earlier this year. About 800 of NOAA's 12,000-strong workers have been terminated or taken financial incentives to resign as part of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency cuts. | Reuters The insurance industry relies on the Global Ocean Observing System's disaster records for risk modelling. Coastal planners use shoreline, sea-level, and hazard data to guide infrastructure investments. The energy industry uses oceanic and seismic datasets to assess offshore drilling or wind farm viability. In addition, the senior EU Commission official said, the EU is considering increasing its funding of the Argo program, a part of the Global Ocean Observing System which operates a global system of floats to monitor the world's oceans and track global warming, extreme weather events and sea-level rise. NOAA last year described the program, in operation for over 25 years, as the "crown jewel" of ocean science. It makes its data freely available to the oil and gas industry, marine tourism and other industries. The United States funds 57% of Argo's $40 million annual operating expenses, while the EU funds 23%. The White House and NOAA did not respond to questions about future support for that program. The European moves to establish independent data collection and play a bigger role in Argo represent a historic break with decades of U.S. leadership in ocean science, said Craig McLean, who retired in 2022 after four decades at the agency. He said U.S. leadership of weather, climate and marine data collection was unmatched, and that through NOAA, the U.S. has paid for more than half of the world's ocean measurements. European scientists acknowledge the outsize role the U.S. government has played in global scientific research and data collection — and that European countries have grown overly dependent on that work. "It's a bit like defense: we rely heavily on the U.S. in that area, too. They're trailblazers and role models — but that also makes us dependent on them," said Katrin Boehning-Gaese, scientific director of Germany's Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. 'Guerilla Archivists' A number of European governments are now taking measures to reduce that dependence. Nordic countries met to coordinate data storage efforts in the spring, said Norwegian Minister of Research and Higher Education Sigrun Aasland. European science ministers also discussed the U.S. science budget cuts at a meeting in Paris in May. Aasland said Norway was setting aside $2 million to back up and store U.S. data to ensure stable access. The Danish Meteorological Institute in February started downloading historical U.S. climate data in case it is deleted by the U.S. It is also preparing to switch from American observations to alternatives, Christina Egelund, minister of higher education and science of Denmark, said in an interview. "The potentially critical issue is when new observations data stop coming in," the Institute's Lema said. While weather models could continue to operate without U.S. data, he said the quality would suffer. Meanwhile, the German government has commissioned scientific organizations, including the center, to review its reliance on U.S. databases. Since Trump returned to the White House, scientists and citizens worldwide have been downloading U.S. databases related to climate, public health or the environment that are slated for decommissioning — calling it "guerrilla archiving." "We actually received requests — or let's say emergency calls — from our colleagues in the U.S., who said, 'We have a problem here... and we will have to abandon some datasets,' said Frank Oliver Gloeckner, head of the digital archive Pangaea, which is operated by publicly funded German research institutions. About 800 of NOAA's 12,000-strong workers have been terminated or taken financial incentives to resign as part of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency cuts. The White House 2026 budget plan seeks to shrink NOAA even further, proposing a $1.8 billion cut, or 27% of the agency's budget, and a near-20% reduction in staffing, bringing down the NOAA workforce to 10,000. The budget proposal would eliminate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA's main research arm, which is responsible for ocean observatory systems including Argo, coastal observing networks, satellite sensors and climate model labs. It is also reducing its data products. Between April and June, NOAA announced on its website the decommissioning of 20 datasets or products related to earthquakes and marine science. NOAA did not respond to requests for comment. Gloeckner said there were no legal hurdles to storing the U.S. government data as it was already in the public domain. But without significant funds and infrastructure, there are limits to what private scientists can save, said Denice Ross, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit science policy group and the U.S. government's chief data officer during the administration of President Joe Biden. Databases need regular updating — which requires the funding and infrastructure that only governments can provide, Ross said. Over the last few months, the federation and EU officials have held a series of talks with European researchers, U.S. philanthropies and health and environment advocacy groups to discuss how to prioritize what data to save. "There is an opportunity for other nations and institutions and philanthropies to fill in the gaps if U.S. quality starts to falter," she said.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
How Trump-vetted scientists are trying to shred the climate consensus
A new report from the U.S. Department of Energy says projections of future global warming are exaggerated, while benefits from higher levels of carbon dioxide such as more productive farms are overlooked. It concludes, at odds with the scientific mainstream, that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions risk doing more harm than good. Released Tuesday, the report is part of an effort by the Trump administration to try to end the U.S. government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It's the output of scientists known for contradicting the consensus embodied in volumes of research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose work is approved by virtually every nation. Publishing an alternate approach to the science of global warming on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to revoke the endangerment finding — a determination that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare — marks a step up in the administration's war on regulations. Since its adoption in 2009, the endangerment finding has become the bedrock of many U.S. environmental rules. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the finding would "end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.' Climate experts say it will hobble the country's efforts to rein in rising temperatures and lessen the impacts, such as more intense storms, droughts and wildfires. The federal government's own research shows climate-fueled extreme weather is already causing $150 billion in losses a year in the U.S. In its proposed rule to nix the finding, the EPA references the Energy Department's report more than two dozen times. Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote in the report's foreword that he had commissioned it and selected the authors to form a working group. The agency's support for the contrarian research stands in contrast to the broad rollback of other climate work under U.S. President Donald Trump. A police vehicle drives past active fire during the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles on Jan. 7. | bloomberg Since his inauguration in January, hundreds of scientists have been dismissed from agencies, including some who had focused on climate change. The EPA recently moved to shutter its main scientific research arm, which has been a crucial tool for policymaking. The U.S. canceled a landmark climate change report, the sixth National Climate Assessment, and has taken down numerous webpages on climate science. Some of those were related to previous National Climate Assessments — studies that hundreds of researchers spent years painstakingly compiling. The new report's authors include Steven Koonin, a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution who wrote a 2021 booking arguing that climate science is "unsettled;' Roy Spencer, a University of Alabama in Huntsville scientist and senior fellow at the climate-denying group Cornwall Alliance; and Judith Curry, a climatologist formerly of Georgia Tech who testified to a Senate committee in 2023 that climate change has been mischaracterized as a crisis. An Energy Department spokesperson said the report's authors "represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds and are all well-respected and highly credentialed individuals.' The spokesperson added that the report "was reviewed internally by a group of DOE scientific researchers and policy experts from the Office of Science and National Labs,' and that there will be a 30-day comment period for the public to weigh in. A group of researchers is putting together a response to the report, according to Texas A&M scientist Andrew Dessler, who announced the effort on the social media site Bluesky on Thursday. The response will call out data omissions and misrepresentations, he said. Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the report presents a series of arguments the administration can draw on to contend "public health and welfare is not endangered by emissions that come from the auto sector, from the trucking sector, from the electricity sector.' Rather than denying climate change is occurring, Carlson said, "What they're trying to say instead is, 'Well, it's not so bad. It's really expensive to mitigate. And that expense actually harms people more than anything we could do' to slow it down. That's in keeping with past comments by members of Trump's cabinet that have downplayed global warming or public concern about it. Carlson said the report is "a wholesale assault' on climate science and previous policy. Energy Secretary Chris Wright | bloomberg Zeke Hausfather, the climate lead at Stripe Inc. and a research scientist at nonprofit Berkeley Earth, has contributed to major U.S. and international climate reports. He described the Energy Department publication as "scattershot' and said it "would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process.' That the administration released it after taking down webpages hosting "the actual, congressionally mandated National Climate Assessments,' he said, is "a farce.' The report is a "package of punches' against the scientific consensus that previously grounded U.S. climate policy, and against that policy itself, said Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. "It's really surreal to think that's where we are in 2025.' The EPA will have to go through the lengthy federal rulemaking process to try to abolish the endangerment finding. If the proposed rule is finalized, legal challenges are inevitable. The issue could end up before the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were pollutants the EPA could regulate under the Clean Air Act. Getting the court, which now has a conservative supermajority, to overturn the 2007 decision may be the endgame, said Carlson. The effort would be risky but could succeed, she said. "I think on every front, the arguments that the [EPA] administrator is going to make — based on the DOE report — are extremely weak,' said Carlson. "But we also have a court that's very hostile to environmental regulation.'
Japan Today
3 days ago
- Japan Today
World Court climate opinion turns up legal heat on governments
By Alison Withers and Stephanie van den Berg FILE PHOTO: Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025. REUTERS/Marta Fiorin/File Photo A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding. While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law. Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings on a case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas. It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling. Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law. Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do. The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts. Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations. Not all U.S. states are skeptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases. In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control. Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels. The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions. In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding. "The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient. The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said. "This is definitely going to help there," Fournier said of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case. 'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT' The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as skepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States. A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues. He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled. "This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said. The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel. Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them. The World Court said that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production. Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments. "This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licenses to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous. TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
