Latest news with #InternationalCourtOfJustice
New York Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- New York Times
A Timeline of the Latest Conflict Between Cambodia and Thailand
Cambodian and Thai troops clashed on Thursday along their heavily patrolled and contested border, wounding several civilians and killing at least one, setting off the evacuation of residents in the area, and unraveling diplomatic relations between the nations. The two neighbors in Southeast Asia have had occasional military clashes and nationalist rivalries for hundreds of years. The border disputes can be traced back to a 1907 map created during French colonial rule in Cambodia. The map was the basis of Cambodia's claims to certain parts of the border, but its vagueness led to conflicting interpretations, and Thailand contested it. The countries tried to resolve the dispute diplomatically, but the issue was never settled completely, even after transnational bodies like the International Court of Justice intervened in 1962. At stake were areas like centuries-old historical temples. Military fighting has broken out intermittently since 2008. The last time tensions turned deadly was in 2011, when the fighting focused on a jungle border area including ancient temples to which both sides had laid claim. Each side blamed the other for starting and prolonging the fighting. The two nations declared a cease-fire after seven days of fighting killed at least 15 people and displaced tens of thousands of civilians. That same year, a United Nations court ordered the two nations to withdraw troops and establish a demilitarized zone, but the court left unresolved who would control a larger disputed territory, where troops kept clashing. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Brazil prepares to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
Brazil is finalizing its submission to join South Africa's genocide case against Israel's actions in Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign ministry said in a statement Wednesday. South Africa filed the case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas militants Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps and shelters. Other countries — including Spain, Turkey and Colombia — have also sought to join the case against Israel. In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law "such as the annexation of territories by force" and expressed "deep indignation" at violence suffered by the civilian population. Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention. The Israeli embassy in Brasilia did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision that "the breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel's ally the United States. The Trump administration announced 50% tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month. A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration said Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will impact its relationship with Washington, however. The United States has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both former U.S. President Joe Biden and Trump. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case.
France 24
2 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
Pacific climate pioneer still fears for island nation's future
Kiribati, a climate-threatened archipelago that is home to some 130,000 people, sits barely two metres (6.5 feet) above sea level, has little freshwater, no rivers and limited fertile land. The International Court of Justice in The Hague declared Wednesday that states are obliged under international law to tackle climate change. "There was a time when it really got me very depressed because of the realisation that there is not much that we can do about it," former Kiribati president Anote Tong, who led the remote nation for 12 years until 2016, told AFP. "I've heard people about talking about climate grief, and perhaps that is what climate grief is all about: realising that you have no future, and understanding that my grandchildren, I've got a lot of grandchildren, I don't know what is going to happen to them." "Previously, I spoke as a leader, now I speak as a grandfather on the climate issue." Tong welcomed the "wonderful achievement" of the international court decision but warned it risked overshadowing the voices of those at the forefront of climate change. "This is a human rights issue. It's not a legal issue," he said. "There is always a danger that we're not focusing on justice, but more on the legal aspects of the issue." 'How do we survive?' The UN's climate expert panel warned rising sea levels and coastal erosion could render some Pacific nations, including Kiribati, uninhabitable by 2060. Tong, 73, said that during his lifetime, extreme weather events had increasingly destroyed crops and fresh water sources. The climate leader said corals lie just off his property. "I used to play with my kids when the tide was at its highest. Now, you can never do that because the waves are too strong," he said. "That's definitely a change. The question is that, can our islands withstand the change?" Tong said he feared a window of opportunity has passed. He blamed the international community, including polluting countries and global bodies, which he said had "failed at every turn" to address climate change and ignored the plight of smaller island states. "Our future is not assured," he said. "I've all but given up, but I can never afford to give up."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
UN's top court finds countries can be liable for emissions
climate politics 34 minutes ago Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister has said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations after the UN's top court found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. The president of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change is an urgent and existential threat. From the Hague, Jamie Tahana reports.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The ICJ's ruling means Australia and other major polluters face a new era of climate reparations
Today, Australia has found itself on the wrong side of history. The International Court of Justice has handed down a landmark ruling in the most significant climate decision ever issued by a court. As a barrister representing Solomon Islands in the case, I was in the courtroom to hear the judges reshape the global fight for climate justice. The world's top court resoundingly rejected conservative arguments made by Australia and other high-emitting countries such as the United States, China and Saudi Arabia seeking to justify continued fossil fuel extraction. Instead, the court made a slew of progressive statements – ones that will have far-reaching implications. Under international law, countries are now bound to rapidly reduce their emissions below 1.5 degrees of warming. Failure to do so could result in developed countries like Australia having to pay monetary compensation to developing countries or being required to rebuild infrastructure and restore ecosystems damaged by climate change. This means we could be entering a new era of climate reparations. This is a watershed moment in the global environmental movement. In a breakthrough for climate campaigners, the court specifically targeted the fossil fuel industry in its ruling and held that countries failing to take action to protect the environment from greenhouse gases – including from fossil fuel production, consumption, exploration licences or subsidies – may commit an 'internationally wrongful act.' With today's decision, that can now be punished under international law. So what implications does this have for Australia? Australia is looking to host COP31 next year and stands on the brink of releasing its updated 2035 emissions reduction target in coming months. As it does so, it may have to change its legislation and policies to rapidly curb the emissions of companies in its jurisdiction. First, the ruling puts pressure on the Albanese government to increase its ambitions for emissions reduction. The court made clear that countries must set goals under the Paris agreement which align with the 1.5C temperature target. Climate Action Tracker has found that for Australia to carry its fair share of the global emissions reduction burden, it should reduce its emissions by 76% by 2035 against a 2005 baseline. This aligns with the upper range of possible targets identified by the Climate Change Authority, which has suggested an emissions target between 65% and 75% by 2035. In light of the ICJ decision, a failure to set a target close to 75% is likely to come under legal or political challenge by other countries and domestic campaigners. Second, to comply with its international obligations, Australia will have to curb its production and use of fossil fuels. Despite its tough talk on climate change, the Albanese government has continued to approve coal, oil and gas projects at an alarming rate. In recent months the government has approved the extension of Woodside's controversial North West Shelf development, a massive gas project which will operate to 2070 and emit an enormous 87.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year. If Australia secures the hosting rights to COP31 it will come under intense pressure from its neighbours in the Pacific to live up to its rhetoric and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. Third, and most importantly, today's ruling means that Australia could pay climate reparations in the future. Developing countries may bring claims against Australia seeking damages. As a high-emitting developed country and one of the largest exporters of coal, oil and gas in the world, Australia has both the historical responsibility for climate change and the means to pay other nations for compensation and restitution. While the scale of any reparations will depend on the amount of damage suffered by the country bringing the claim, the breadth of climate change impacts mean that Australia and other countries could be faced with very high-value cases. Money is a strong motivator. The world court's decision today means that the threat of reparations can now be used to compel action from the worst, most stubborn climate offenders – Australia included. That is transformative for climate lawyers, giving us a powerful tool to pressure governments and corporations to acknowledge the realities of our warming planet. But it is a victory for everyone – a clear statement that the status quo isn't sufficient. We must act now to confront the climate crisis. And in a moment when hope feels hard to come by, that's very good news indeed. Harj Narulla is a barrister and leading global expert on climate litigation at Doughty Street Chambers and the University of Oxford. He represented Solomon Islands before the ICJ but is writing in his personal capacity
