Latest news with #VishalPrasad
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
ICJ Climate Ruling: Will The World's Top Court Back A Pacific-led Call To Hold Govts Accountable For Climate Change?
By , for RNZ Pacific in The Hague In 2019, a group of students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world's governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea: they would take the world's governments to court. They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries' legal obligations under international law. Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will on Wednesday (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague. If successful - and those involved are quietly confident they will be - it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage. Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed. "Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment," Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed of those original students, said. "For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration," he said. "[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law." More than 100 countries - including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific - have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations. And now, on Wednesday (Thursday NZT), they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city, to hear if the judges of the world's top court agree. What is the case? The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues. In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to ask the judges to weigh what, exactly, international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions. Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court's history. That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, who said they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating. These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries' actions. "I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity," Vanuatu's minister for climate change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year. "Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned." But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change. "We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings," Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case), said. "Among them: whether States' climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States' climate obligations." What could this mean? Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over. Still, the court's opinion - if it falls in Vanuatu's favour - could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings - both international and domestic - and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm. An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms. "This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial," Prasad said. In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have "legal obligations" to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring "legal consequences." At the Peace Palace at 3pm on Wednesday, they will find out from the court's 15 judges. "[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations," Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat said in a statement ahead of Wednesday's decision. "I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action."
The Wire
a day ago
- Politics
- The Wire
ICJ to Deliver Landmark Climate Ruling
The top United Nations court will on Wednesday (July 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 graves' 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. "They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice." The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Int'l Business Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
ICJ To Deliver Landmark Climate Ruling
The top United Nations court will on Wednesday 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. 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. 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. 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. "They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice."
CNA
2 days ago
- 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.
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
ICJ to deliver landmark climate ruling
THE HAGUE - The top United Nations court will on Wednesday 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 GRAVES' - 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. "They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice."
