Latest news with #UNcourt
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult. The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019. "Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally. "This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard." The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming. Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem. But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument. Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement. He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system. The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. "The ruling is a watershed legal moment," said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. "With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation," she added. The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation. This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis. It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful. Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour. A simple guide to climate change Four ways climate change worsens extreme weather What you can do to reduce carbon emissions Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here. Solve the daily Crossword
BBC News
6 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was dreamt up in 2019 by a group of young law students in low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change."Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally."This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard." The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be Wednesday the court rejected that Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement are still required to protect the environment, including the climate court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
CNA
21-07-2025
- Politics
- CNA
World's top court to deliver landmark climate ruling
THE HAGUE: The top United Nations court will on Wednesday (Jul 23) hand down a landmark global legal blueprint for tackling climate change that also sets out top polluters' responsibilities towards the countries suffering most. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet. Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world. Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases. "It will be the compass the world needs to course correct," said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. "It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet," said Prasad. But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. "ACTS AND OMISSIONS" The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for states which "by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?" The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. "DAVID VS GOLIATH" In what was termed a "David versus Goliath" battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions -- the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. "This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity," said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. "The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet," he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was "the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change". Taylor urged the court "to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime". Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. "The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime," said Luther Rangreji. The United States under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. "WATERY GRACES" But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. "As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. "This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves," said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. "This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity," said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. "Our people ... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create.
