International law includes climate-change obligations, UN court says
Why it matters: While non-binding, advocates hope the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion adds new weight to global courtroom and diplomatic efforts to win tougher climate policies.
It specifically calls out the responsibility of industrialized nations to take the lead in limiting emissions.
It's also rich in symbolism, the culmination of a campaign by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and other countries that are facing massive climate harms.
Driving the news: The ruling explicitly holds that countries should face legal requirements for breaching obligations under agreements including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
This includes ceasing activities that are in violation and providing compensation to harmed parties in some cases.
The ruling is expansive, spanning obligations under human rights law and multiple environmental agreements, including marine protection.
The court is "unanimously is of the opinion that the climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for state parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions," Judge Iwasawa Yuji, the court's president, said in reading the decision in the Hague.
Reality check: The opinion is a big deal — but only to a point.
The Trump administration in particular is moving the U.S. away from working with UN-affiliated bodies, and is again leaving the Paris Agreement. Ignoring the ICJ opinion could further isolate the U.S. in the world's eyes.
Industrial nations' on-the-ground work to check emissions — or not — is rooted in domestic economic needs, politics and market realities.
Global venues like the ICJ or the UN climate summits are more secondary influences, but they do create pressure for stronger policies.
Catch up quick: The court, at the behest of the UN General Assembly in 2023, considered two big questions.
What are nations' obligations under international law to protect the environment for present and future generations?
What are the legal consequences under these obligations for countries that have caused "significant harm" to the climate and environment?
What they're saying: " When a court like the ICJ recognizes new connections between conduct and legal norms, like the idea that failing to curb fossil fuels-related emissions can violate international legal obligations, it does not stop there," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney with the Center For International Environmental Law
"That recognition opens the door for further legal claims," Duyck said in a statement.
Adds Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network International: "Governments and corporations now face clearly defined legal obligations to prevent climate catastrophe and make reparations for decades of reckless pollution."
The liberal Center for American Progress think tank said on X: "The ICJ ruling is a major indictment against the Trump administration's climate denial and their efforts to let polluters off the hook."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
No proof Hamas routinely stole UN aid, Israeli military officials say
Now, with hunger at crisis levels in the territory, Israel is coming under increased international pressure over its conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian suffering it has brought. Doctors in the territory say that an increasing number of their patients are suffering from -- and dying of -- starvation. More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups warned this past week of 'mass starvation' and implored Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance. The European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France, and Canada, issued a joint statement condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid' to Gaza's 2 million Palestinian residents. Advertisement Israel has largely brushed off the criticism. David Mencer, a government spokesperson, said this past week that there was 'no famine caused by Israel.' Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages. Advertisement Israel moved in May toward replacing the UN-led aid system that had been in place for most of the 21-month war in Gaza, opting instead to back a private, American-run operation guarded by armed US contractors in areas controlled by Israeli military forces. Some aid still comes into Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. The new system has proved to be much deadlier for Palestinians trying to obtain food handouts. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, almost 1,100 people have been killed by gunfire on their way to get food handouts under the new system, in many cases by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on hungry crowds. Israeli officials have said they fired shots in the air in some instances because the crowds came too close or endangered their forces. The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original UN aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That's largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza. Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid. A Hamas representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An internal US government analysis came to a similar conclusion, Reuters reported Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of US-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said. Advertisement 'For months, we and other organizations were dragged through the mud by accusations that Hamas steals from us,' said Georgios Petropoulos, a former UN official in Gaza who oversaw aid coordination with Israel for nearly 13 months of war. The senior military officials and others interviewed by the Times spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the military or government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the military said that it has been 'well documented' that Hamas has routinely 'exploited humanitarian aid to fund terrorist activities.' But the military did not dispute the assessment that there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole aid from the United Nations. The Israeli government and military have often clashed over how to conduct the war in Gaza. Early last year, top commanders urged a cease-fire with Hamas to secure the release of hostages. Netanyahu's government instead expanded the ground operation in southern Gaza. Israel used the rationale that Hamas steals aid when it cut off all food and other supplies to Gaza between March and May. In March, after a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel collapsed, Netanyahu said: 'Hamas is currently taking control of all supplies and goods entering Gaza,' and he declared that Israel would prevent anything from entering the territory. That blockade, and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels. For most of the war, the UN was the largest single source of aid entering Gaza, according to data from the Israeli military unit that oversees policy in the territory. Advertisement Now, the new aid system is managed instead by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private American company led by a former CIA agent. It was intended to eventually replace international aid organizations and the UN role. But it has only a few distribution hubs, compared with hundreds under the former UN-run operation. The new system's rollout at the end of May was quickly followed by near-daily episodes of deadly violence near distribution sites. Desperate and hungry Palestinians must go to the few aid distribution sites located in areas controlled by Israeli forces. The hours of operation are limited and supplies run out, so crowds arrive early, with some walking for miles to get there. Since May 19, when Israel allowed emergency supplies to resume entering Gaza after its two-month blockade, half of the aid has been distributed by the United Nations and international organizations, with the other half coming through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the Israeli military says. Petropoulos welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the UN-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner. 'If the UN had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn't be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,' he said. This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Pope Leo says migrants and refugees can bring light and aspiration from dark corners of the world
'In a world darkened by war and injustice, even when all seems lost, migrants and refugees stand as messengers of hope,' he said. 'Their courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes.' Advertisement The remarks from Leo, who ascended to the papacy earlier this year to become the first American pope, come amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles and other cities have sparked protests across the country, and a surge in detentions has led to immigrants being held in overcrowded facilities with deteriorating conditions. Pope Leo showed a special interest in the well-being of immigrants during his work before the Vatican and has been described as the 'first modern immigrant pope.' In a May meeting, he emphasized this side of his past to diplomats, telling them, 'My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate.' Advertisement 'All of us, in the course of our lives, can find ourselves healthy or sick, employed or unemployed, living in our native land or in a foreign country, yet our dignity always remains unchanged: It is the dignity of a creature willed and loved by God,' he said. Before his papacy, Leo served the poor in Peru for decades and was especially concerned about Venezuelan migrants who fled there, opening churches as soup kitchens and asking priests to convert free spaces into makeshift refuges while bishop of Chiclayo. That side of his work has resonated with other leaders in the church. The Rev. Russell Pollitt, a Jesuit priest at Holy Trinity Catholic Church near Johannesburg, said in May that Leo 'seems to have been someone who was on the side of migrants and refugees flocking to Peru from Venezuela.' 'I think that's important, that we don't lose that. Migrants and refugees are becoming a sort of scapegoat for politicians,' he said. In this past week's letter, Leo stressed that communities that welcome migrants and refugees can become living witnesses to hope. 'In this way, migrants and refugees are recognized as brothers and sisters, part of a family in which they can express their talents and participate fully in community life.' He wished for spiritual protection for 'all those who are on the journey, as well as those who are working to accompany them.'
Chicago Tribune
2 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How France's recognition of the state of Palestine could shift Middle East dynamics
PARIS — France's bold decision to recognize the state of Palestine could help to shift conversations about the future of the Middle East, even if it's unlikely to have an immediate impact for people in Gaza or on Israel's war with Hamas. In a world where nations are again using military force to impose their will on others — notably Russia in Ukraine, and the U.S. and Israel with their recent strikes on Iran and its nuclear facilities — French President Emmanuel Macron is attempting to strike a blow for diplomacy and the idea that war rarely brings peace. With less than two years left of his second and last term as president, Macron also has his legacy to think about. Not acting decisively as a humanitarian disaster unfolds in Gaza could be a stain when history books are written. Macron has levers to influence world affairs as leader of a nuclear-armed, economically and diplomatically powerful country that also sits at the big table at the United Nations, as one of the five permanent members of its security council. Being the first member of the G7 group of industrialized nations to take this leap carries domestic risks. Presiding over a country with both Europe's largest Jewish population and largest Muslim population, Macron is on a public opinion tightrope. His words will please some voters but infuriate others — a fact reflected by deeply divided political reactions in France to his decision announced on X on Thursday evening. But after staunchly backing Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas and its Oct. 7, 2023, attack that triggered the war, Macron is signaling that France's support can only go so far. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the shift by one of his country's closer allies in Europe. 'Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became,' he said in a statement. 'A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it.'' The idea that Palestinians and Israelis could live side by side in peace in their own states has perhaps never looked more unrealistic — with Gaza in ruins and the occupied West Bank facing increasing settlement by Israelis. Macron's words alone won't change that. Still, the French leader's message is that the hope of a 'two-state solution' achieved through diplomacy must not be allowed to die — however unattainable it may seem. 'This solution is the only path that can address the legitimate aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It must now be brought about as quickly as possible,' Macron said in a letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas which confirmed his decision to recognize Palestine as a state. 'The prospect of a negotiated solution to the conflict in the Middle East seems increasingly distant. I cannot resign myself to that,' he said. The first impacts are likeliest not in Gaza but in world capitals where leaders may face pressure or feel emboldened to follow France's lead. Attention is focusing on other G7 nations, because of their economic and diplomatic sway. 'Macron's declaration could create a precedent because it would be the first Western country in the G7 to do so, which could have the effect of leading others,' said David Rigoulet-Roze, a researcher at the French Institute of Strategic Analysis. Although more than 140 countries recognize Palestine as a state, France will be the biggest, most populous and most powerful among those in Europe that have taken this step. 'It creates some small momentum,' said Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London who also added, however, that 'this is not enough.' 'France should be congratulated, and Macron should be congratulated for doing that and showing the courage,' he said. Until now, China and Russia were the only permanent members of the U.N. Security Council that recognized Palestinian statehood. France will join them when Macron makes good on his promise in September at the U.N. General Assembly. The new trio will leave the U.S. and the U.K. in a security council minority as its only permanent members that don't recognize Palestine as a state. The so-called P5 nations are divided on many other issues — including Ukraine, trade and climate change — so France's shift isn't, in itself, likely to spur radical and rapid change for Palestinians. Still, if only mathematically, the U.S. — Israel's most important ally — and the U.K could find themselves more isolated among the big powers in any discussions on solutions for the Middle East. U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Macron's decision on Friday, saying 'What he says doesn't matter. It's not going to change anything.' France may have better traction with the U.K. Putting Brexit behind them, the U.K. and France are now drawing closer, most notably in support for Ukraine. If British Prime Minister Keir Starmer follows Macron's example, Trump could become the odd man out on Palestinian statehood among the security council's big five powers. Starmer has signaled growing disquiet over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying in a statement Thursday that suffering and starvation there 'is unspeakable and indefensible.' But he doesn't seem ready to take a leap like Macron, suggesting that fighting must stop first. 'Statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people,' Starmer said. 'A ceasefire will put us on a path to the recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution.'
