Latest news with #JoieChowdhury
Morocco World
5 days ago
- Politics
- Morocco World
ICJ Says Polluters Can be Held Responsible for Climate Change
Rabat – The International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands handed down a ruling on climate justice and accountability on Wednesday. This follows a long, landmark legal case initiated by Vanuatu. The court has ruled that developing nations have the right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Nations can also sue for compensation . However, these decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and be supported by strong evidence linking the damage to climate change. . During the evidence-based hearings in December last year, the court heard from a number of different nations on ecological damage. The ICJ opinion can also lead to countries that are the biggest emitters being sued for fossil fuel production. It also opens the door for smaller nations to present their cases. The case was brought forward by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation , and backed by 130 countries, as many states have faced threats from climate change and harsh environmental conditions. Vanuatu's coral reefs have recently suffered from a series of devastating natural disasters, rising sea levels, and climate change. This has resulted in widespread coral bleaching across the nation in what the government has referred to as ecocide. The decision is non-binding but will be considered a legal benchmark in terms of environmental law. It is the first-ever opinion on climate change and ecological justice. It will serve as a standard for future court decisions. This is one of the largest cases overseen by the ICJ, with judges having been through tens of thousands of pages of documents and heard over two weeks of oral arguments. Fifteen judges from the ICJ announced their decision on Wednesday. The decision of the court is non-binding at the present time, but it has the potential to be used by national governments and international organisations. The judgment goes further than climate change agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and COP decisions. Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press that this case 'makes this so important because it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets, it also tackles historical responsibility because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots.' The case was first sent to court in 2023, and Vanuatu presented its testimony in December. Activists have insisted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is not enough, and in their opinion, the ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of International Law, which allows it to provide such an answer.' Many similar court rulings have been made recently, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and to protect ecosystems. The European Court of Human Rights came to a similar conclusion. This decision will outline the obligations of nations and potential penalties for the negative effects of ecocide. It will also seek to have ecocide seen as a crime under international law. It will look at what states should be doing in terms of their human rights obligations and the impact of the sea-level rise and climate change. It will also look at the potential for action to be taken by bigger states, which are the largest contributors of Greenhouse Gas emissions, towards smaller , more affected states. Action on climate change has become more vital in recent years as the effects have intensified exponentially over the last decade, with sea levels rising by an average of 4.3 centimetres a year, and an increase of 1.3 °C in global average temperature. Pacific Island nations have been at the front line of climate change. As sea levels rise, their territory disappears. Several states are likely to have disappeared by 2050, destroying entire communities. This decision and announcement mark a historic landmark for ecological accountability and environmental justice.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Does the World Court's Sweeping Climate Opinion Matter? Five Takeaways.
Ask for someone's opinion on something gnarly and you might get some surprisingly strong words. That's what happened in The Hague on Wednesday, when the International Court of Justice, established by the United Nations and also known as the World Court, issued a stinging advisory opinion saying that countries have a legal obligation to limit the emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases and provide restitution if their specific actions caused harm. The opinion was unanimous. One legal analyst, Thomas Burri, a professor at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, called it 'unexpectedly bold.' It was the result of a yearslong effort led by the tiny Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu. The court's opinion is not legally binding, and some countries, including the United States, haven't accepted its jurisdiction over all matters. So how does it matter? The opinion could affect current cases, and spur more. The court's opinion could strengthen the case that citizens' groups have made in their national courts, from Australia to Switzerland, accusing their governments of failing to protect their people from the harms of climate change. 'Courts worldwide are likely to reference this ruling in their upcoming decisions,' said Joie Chowdhury, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University Law School professor, called it 'an invitation for lawsuits in many countries' courts saying not enough is being done.' It says government support for fossil fuels may be punishable. It concludes that state subsidies could be seen as an 'internationally wrongful act.' That's a big deal. Many countries, rich and poor, offer a host of subsidies for coal, oil or gas. The United States had previously argued that international law does 'impose specific obligations' on the production of fossil fuels, including subsidies. The opinion says countries have a legal obligation to regulate private companies within their jurisdictions. It strengthens calls for compensating poorer countries. One of the most provocative issues in global climate negotiations is who should pay for the damages caused by 150 years of fossil-fuel burning. That issue pits industrialized countries against smaller climate-vulnerable nations, and it's likely to come up at the United Nations-mediated climate talks in Brazil later this year. The court uses stark language. States have an obligation to 'compensate' if it can be shown that the actions of a state resulted in harm to others. 'This paves the way for more concrete demands around loss and damage, historical responsibility, and the rights of communities facing existential threats,' said Joana Setzer, a research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London. Mohamed Adow, a climate activist from Kenya, called it 'a rocket boost for climate justice.' It applies to the U.S. even though the U.S. doesn't always follow the court's findings. The advisory opinion plainly says that international human rights law obliges every country in the world to prevent harm to the environment. The issue is that the United States has had an ambivalent relationship with the court. It recognizes the court and appears before it frequently, but doesn't always abide by its recommendations, particularly when they run contrary to U.S. interests. Still, said Dr. Burri of the University of St. Gallen, 'That the advisory opinion is not binding matters less than it may seem,' because 'if states were to ignore it completely because it is not binding, this would carry a price over time.' Mr. Gerrard, of Columbia University, said he did not expect U.S. courts to enforce it. It shows that tiny countries have muscle. The case was initiated by Vanuatu, an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean whose 300,000 people are extremely vulnerable to disasters aggravated by the burning of fossil fuels. It began in 2018, when a group of law students presented President Nikenike Vurobaravu with a nascent idea. The president told The New York Times in an interview in 2022 that, as an elder, he felt obliged to take up their cause. Vanuatu's diplomats were then joined by several other small island nations. Together they persuaded other countries to seek an advisory opinion from the court. When they brought it to the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, it passed by consensus. That kind of unity is rare. The General Assembly Hall erupted in applause. 'Small countries basically rely on effective multilateralism,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate minister, said in an interview. 'We can't go it alone like the U.S. or other economies.'
6 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.
Straits Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
In landmark opinion, the World Court says climate change is an ‘existential threat'
The Paris Agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. THE HAGUE - The United Nations' highest court on July 23 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 in December 2024 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. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Judge asks prosecution for more information on Kpods in first case involving etomidate-laced vapes Singapore Male victim of fatal Toa Payoh fire was known to keep many things, say residents Singapore 5 teens arrested for threatening boy with knife, 2 charged with causing hurt Singapore HDB launches 10,209 BTO and balance flats, as priority scheme for singles kicks in Sport Bukayo Saka the difference as Arsenal beat AC Milan at National Stadium Singapore Cyclist charged after allegedly hitting elderly pedestrian, killing him Singapore Over 1.15 million Singaporeans aged 21 to 59 have claimed SG60 vouchers Singapore Singapore Oceanarium will enhance tourism while supporting sustainability: Grace Fu 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 deg C. The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late in 2024, 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 deg C 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 in July, 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 the July 23 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 Mr 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,' Mr Chowdhury said. REUTERS
USA Today
6 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)
