Latest news with #DaniloGarrido
Scroll.in
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Countries failing to curb greenhouse emissions could be ordered to pay reparations: UN court
Countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and failing to do so could result in them being ordered to pay reparations, the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion on Wednesday. The United Nations court said that international treaties on climate change 'set forth binding obligations' for countries to 'adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change'. A breach of these commitments 'constitutes an internationally wrongful act', said the UN court, adding that this may lead to the violating countries being ordered to provide assurances of 'non-repetition of wrongful actions'. They may also be required to provide 'full reparation to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction', the international court held. The ruling is not binding, but could pave the way for developed nations to be sued if they fail to control their emission levels, according to reports. 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level,' Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for non-profit organisation Greenpeace, was quoted as saying by Reuters. The case originated from years of campaigning by law students from island nations in the Pacific Ocean, according to The Guardian. It was led by Vanuatu, a South Pacific Ocean nation. Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, described the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion as a 'milestone moment' for climate justice. 'It has confirmed what vulnerable nations have been saying and have known for so long,' he said. 'That states do have legal obligations to act on climate change.' International Court of Justice President Yuji Iwasawa, who headed the panel that issued the advisory opinion, said that nations must collectively seek to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement, reported Reuters. Under the 2015 deal, nearly all countries have agreed to keep the long-term global average surface temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. However, soon after taking office for his second term as the United States president, Donald Trump had in January signed an executive order once again withdrawing the country from the agreement. He said that the deal had the potential to 'damage or stifle the American economy' and that such agreements 'must not unduly or unfairly burden the United States'. Trump had withdrawn the US from the climate deal in 2017 during his first term. The withdrawal took effect in November 2020. However, the action was overturned by Trump's successor Joe Biden in January 2021, leading the US to rejoin the agreement in February 2021. Responding to a question about the international court's opinion, White House Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Reuters on Wednesday that Trump 'and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans'.
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change
The UK could be sued over its contribution to climate change after a court ruling that countries are responsible for their emissions. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. Despite being advisory, there are fears it could be enshrined in law by Labour, who, under the guidance of Attorney General Lord Hermer, have an 'ideological obsession' with international law, the Tories warned on Wednesday night. Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
