Latest news with #Yuji Iwasawa
Arab News
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
World's top court paves way for climate reparations
THE HAGUE: The world's highest court Wednesday declared that states are obliged under international law to tackle climate change and warned that failing to do so could open the door to reparations. In a historic statement, the International Court of Justice said climate change was an 'urgent and existential threat' and countries had a legal duty to prevent harm from their planet-warming pollution. Countries breaching their climate obligations were committing a 'wrongful act,' the court said in its advisory opinion, which is not legally binding but carries political and legal weight. 'The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include... full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' said ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa on behalf of the 15-judge panel. This would be on a case-by-case basis where a 'sufficient direct and certain causal nexus' had been shown 'between the wrongful act and the injury,' the court added. Campaigners and countries on the climate frontlines hailed a milestone moment in the fight for accountability from big polluters most responsible for global warming. 'This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference,' said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Ralph Regenvanu, the climate change minister for Vanuatu, the Pacific island nation that spearheaded the case at The Hague, was jubilant. Speaking to AFP outside the court, Regenvanu said it was 'a very strong opinion at the end' and better than hoped. 'We can use these arguments when we talk with our partners, some of the high-emitting states. We can say you have a legal obligation to help us,' he said. 'This helps us in our arguments. It's going to give us a lot more leverage... in all negotiations.' This was the biggest case in ICJ history, and seen as the most consequential in a recent string of landmark climate moves. The United Nations had tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court in The Hague that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions for the future? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? In a detailed summary of the opinion, Iwasawa said the climate 'must be protected for present and future generations.' The adverse effect of a warming planet 'may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life,' he added. Legal and climate experts said the opinion, while not legally binding, could have far-reaching consequences for national courts, legislation and public debate. 'The court's clear and detailed articulation of state obligations will be a catalyst for accelerated climate action and unprecedented accountability,' David Boyd, a former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, told AFP. Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the ruling bound all nations by international law to prevent harm from emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. The court was 'pointing the direction for the entire world and making clear that every nation is legally obliged to solve the climate crisis,' he told AFP. 'Perfect ending' Courts have become a key battleground for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. The journey to The Hague began six years ago with students from the climate-imperilled Pacific region fed up with the lack of accountability for the damage afflicting their homelands. 'Young Pacific Islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world. And the world must respond,' said UN chief Guterres, praising Vanuatu's leadership. The fight pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states which are most at the mercy of a warming planet. More than 100 nations and groups made submissions, many from the Pacific who gave impassioned appeals in colorful traditional dress. 'It's such a perfect ending to a campaign that started in a classroom,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the student-led campaign that kicked off the case. 'We have now a very, very strong tool to hold power accountable, and we must do that now. The ICJ has given everything possible,' he told AFP. The United States, which has embraced a fossil fuel agenda under President Donald Trump, had a muted response to the ruling. A US State Department spokesperson said it 'will be reviewing the Court's advisory opinion in the coming days and weeks.' French Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher hailed the advisory opinion as a 'victory for the most vulnerable states, a victory for France and a victory for the climate.' John Kerry, the former US special envoy for climate change, said 'it should not take the stamp of international law to motivate countries to do what is already profoundly in their economic interests.' 'We shouldn't need another reason to act and accelerate action,' he told AFP.
CTV News
23-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
UN's top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
An activist holds a fan that reads "make polluters pay" as they demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice ahead of an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change and which consequences they may face if they don't, on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations's top court announced Wednesday that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't, calling it an 'urgent and existential' threat to humanity. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a 'case by case' basis. The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that 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,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. ___ Molly Quell, The Associated Press Associated Press writer Annika Hammerschlag in Vanuatu contributed to this report. The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
