Latest news with #EmissionsGapReport
Dubai Eye
4 days ago
- Politics
- Dubai Eye
World Court says countries must address climate change threat
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. "Climate change treaties establish stringent obligations on states," judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failing to comply with them was a breach of international law. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He 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 (2.7 Fahrenheit). Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." Earlier, as he started reading the court's opinion, judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague 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. The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial 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. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.
5 days ago
- Politics
In landmark opinion, the World Court says climate change is an 'existential threat'
The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited, judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now! Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice, said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law. WATCH | European court forces Switzerland to strengthen climate policies (from April 2024): 2 key questions The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 C. The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent Emissions Gap Report (new window) , which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. What the ruling could do Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure, but a breach of international law, said Fijian 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. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to, Chowdhury said.
GMA Network
5 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
In landmark opinion, World Court says climate change an ‘existential threat'
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 THE HAGUE — The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday underlined "the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change" as it started to read out an opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Paris Agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial 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. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian 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. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to," Chowdhury said. — Reuters
USA Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Climate change is an 'existential threat,' says landmark ruling from UN court
The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday underlined "the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change" as it started to read out an opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. The two questions the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Paris agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N. said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. What is the Paris Climate Agreement? Trump signs order to withdraw US, again 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. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian 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. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to," Chowdhury said. (Additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Zoran Mikletic, Marta Fiorin, Farah Salhi in The Hague; Writing by Stephanie van den Berg and Ingrid Melander, editing by Ed Osmond and Barbara Lewis)
Straits Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
FILE PHOTO: The Dragon Bravo Fire burns on the northern rim as seen from Grandeur Point on the southern rim of Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. July 14, 2025. REUTERS/David Swanson/File Photo THE HAGUE - The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: 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? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Business Singapore's digital banks finding their niche in areas like SMEs as they narrow losses in 2024 World Trump says US will charge 19% tariff on goods from Philippines, down from 20% Singapore Two found dead after fire in Toa Payoh flat Singapore 2 foreigners arrested for shop theft at Changi Airport Opinion Most companies onboard wrong – here's how to get it right Sport AC Milan's Rafael Leao gives Singapore fan an unforgettable birthday Life Ozzy Osbourne, Black Sabbath's bat-biting frontman turned reality TV star, dies aged 76 Singapore Ports and planes: The 2 Singapore firms helping to keep the world moving Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial 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. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian 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. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT). REUTERS
