Latest news with #VishalPrasad
DW
4 days ago
- Politics
- DW
National climate inaction just got harder – DW – 07/23/2025
The International Court of Justice ruling on climate inaction could see badly affected states seek reparations from big polluters. In a ruling that is non-binding, but that experts say is likely to have far-reaching consequences, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has made clear that the climate must be protected for "present and future generations." Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global temperatures, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human at the UN's top court on Wednesday, he added that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law. The consequences of a country failing to fulfill its duty would be "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' he said. In other words, the ruling paves the way for countries, groups or individuals being impacted by extreme weather and other climate impacts to sue high-emitting nations, including over past emissions. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ruling as a "lifeline" for Pacific communities facing some of the worst impacts of climate change. "The world's smallest countries have made history," he said. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities." Reading the ruling, Iwasawa said "greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have cross-border effects" with far-reaching consequences. These, he said, "underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The judge further said that countries have an obligation under both international laws — including human rights legislation — and international climate treaties to protect the environment and ensure a stable climate. As such, countries are obliged to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change. They must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition, according to the court. In its ruling, the ICJ also said countries have a duty not to turn away migrants whose lives would be endangered by climate change in their home countries. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former human rights chief, Mary Robinson, said the ruling was "a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change." "This is a gift from the Pacific and the world's youth to the global community, a legal turning point that can accelerate the path toward a safer, fairer future," said Robinson, who is also a member of The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working toward justice and a healthy planet. The case began in 2020 after students from Pacific Island countries lobbied governments into calling for the legal clarification of national obligation on tackling climate change. The state of Vanuatu asked the ICJ to rule on the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment — and by extension present and future generations — from greenhouse gas emissions. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Speaking in front of the court following the decision, Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called the ruling a "landmark milestone for climate action." "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time. For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity, which is climate change," he added. "It points to the critical nature of this issue and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency." Last December, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organizations. Some called for greater legal protections from climate change. Others said existing UN treaties — primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement — provided enough legal guidelines on action toward slowing climate change. Germany and the US were among the latter. President Donald Trump has since announced his country's withdrawal from the landmark accord that saw 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and pursue efforts to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). But experts say the Paris Agreement was never intended to define all laws around climate change. Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told DW the scope of climate change means there is space for a lot of different laws. "The climate treaties remain very important, they're just not the only game in town," she told DW. In bringing the case to the court, Vanuatu also asked for clarification on the legal consequences for countries that failed to meet their obligations on slowing their emissions. Some experts have said countries and regions that have emitted most CO2 cumulatively — including the United States, China, Russia and the European Union — carry the most responsibility for global warming. "Past emissions matter," Chowdhury told DW, adding that harm has already been done. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Poorer countries have long been calling for richer nations to pay for damage caused by extreme weather linked to the emissions heating the planet. Many of these less wealthy states are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, despite having done the least to contribute to the crisis. The ICJ advisory warned that "adverse impacts and loss and damage will escalate with every increment of global warming." It made clear that countries have to meet their climate obligations or potentially see affected nations seek reparations through legal action.A loss and damage fund was established at UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but has only received around $700 million in pledges. That is far lower than the hundreds of billions of dollars experts say climate change could cost in damages by 2030. "The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy," Chowdhury said. "The verdict is out: polluters must pay," she added. The ICJ advisory opinion is one of three that have been delivered in past months outlining state obligations around climate action. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion asserting countries' obligations to protect citizens' human rights by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal weight and moral authority. One impact could be on litigation being brought against governments and companies over climate impacts. So far, around 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries. Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, said the advisory opinion marks a "turning point" for litigation. "It's authoritative interpretation of countries' legal obligations will serve as a crucial tool for domestic courts, litigants and advocates striving to hold governments accountable," she said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
4 days ago
- Politics
- DW
World's top court paves rules on countries' climate inaction – DW – 07/23/2025
The International Court of Justice has ruled that states' failure to tackle climate change could amount to a violation of international law and see most-affected nations seek reparations. In a ruling that is non-binding, but that experts say is likely to have far-reaching consequences, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made clear that the climate must be protected for "present and future generations." Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global temperatures, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right, and that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law. The consequences of a country failing to fulfill its duty would be "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' he said at the UN's top court on Wednesday. The other words, the ruling paves the way for countries, groups or individuals being impacted by extreme weather and other climate impacts to sue high-emitting nations, including over past emissions. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ruling as a "lifeline" for Pacific communities facing some of the worst impacts of climate change. "Today, the world's smallest countries have made history," he said. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities." Reading the ruling, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said "greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have cross-border effects" with far-reaching consequences. These, he said, "underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The judge further said that countries have an obligation under both international laws — including human rights legislation — and international climate treaties to protect the environment and ensure a stable climate. As such, countries have a duty to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change. They must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition, according to the court. In its ruling, the court also said countries had a duty not to turn away migrants whose lives would be endangered by climate change in their home countries. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former human rights chief, Mary Robinson, said ruling was "a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change." "This is a gift from the Pacific and the world's youth to the global community, a legal turning point that can accelerate the path toward a safer, fairer future," said Robinson, who is also a member of The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working toward justice and a healthy planet. The case began in 2020 after students from Pacific Island countries lobbied governments into calling for the legal clarification of state obligation when it comes to tackling climate change. The state of Vanuatu requested the ICJ to rule on the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment — and by extension present and future generations — from greenhouse gas emissions. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Speaking in front of the court following the decision, Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called the ruling a "landmark milestone for climate action." "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time. For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity, which is climate change," he added. "It points to the critical nature of this issue and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency." In December, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organizations. Both those calling for greater legal protections from climate change, and those who said existing UN treaties — primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement — provided enough legal guidelines on action toward slowing climate change. Germany and the US were among them. President Donald Trump has since announced his country's withdrawal from the landmark accord that saw 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and pursue efforts to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). But experts say the Paris agreement was never intended to define all laws around climate change. Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told DW the scope of climate change meant there is scope for a lot of different laws. "The climate treaties remain very important, they're just not the only game in town," she told DW. In bringing the case to the court, Vanuatu also asked for clarification on the legal consequences for countries that failed to meet their obligations on slowing their emissions. Some experts have said countries and regions that have emitted most CO2 cumulatively — including the United States, China, Russia and the European Union — carry the most responsibility for global warming. "Past emissions matter," Chowdhury told DW, adding that harm has already been done. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Poorer countries have long been calling for richer nations to pay for damage caused by extreme weather linked to the emissions heating the planet. Many of these less wealthy states are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, despite having done the least to contribute to the crisis. The ICJ advisory warned that "adverse impacts and loss and damage will escalate with every increment of global warming." It made clear that countries have to meet their climate obligations or potentially see affected nations seek reparations through legal action.A loss and damage fund was established at UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but has only received around $700 million in pledges. That is far lower than the hundreds of billions of dollars experts say climate change could cost in damages by 2030. "The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy," Chowdhury said. "The verdict is out: polluters must pay," she added. The ICJ advisory opinion is one of three that have been delivered in past months outlining state obligations around climate action. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion asserting countries' obligations to protect citizens' human rights by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal weight and moral authority. One impact could be on litigation being brought against governments and companies over climate impacts. So far, around 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries. Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, said the advisory opinion marks a "turning point" for litigation. "It's authoritative interpretation of countries' legal obligations will serve as a crucial tool for domestic courts, litigants and advocates striving to hold governments accountable," she said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Japan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Top U.N. court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change. In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law. The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control. Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met." "I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatuan Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out. 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, said, "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice." U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond." Human right to clean environment Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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. Under international law, he said, "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second-biggest current emitter, behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations. Vanuatuan Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on Wednesday. | AFP-JIJI "As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the opinion. With skepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialized countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. Political and legal weight The court's opinion is nonbinding, but it 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. Harj Narulla, a barrister specializing in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. "These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said. Two questions Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions: 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? Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above preindustrial 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.
SBS Australia
5 days ago
- Politics
- SBS Australia
Countries have a duty to fight climate change, court says
An international court says countries have an obligation to prevent harm from climate change and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Activists welcomed the non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight as a step in the right direction. The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The ICJ decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection , reparations and a future". The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu called the deliberation a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Judge Iwasawa said the two questions "represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet". "International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem," he said. "A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. "Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the individual, social and political levels — to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come."
Scoop
5 days 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."
