Latest news with #internationalcourt
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Top court says countries can sue each other for climate damage – this is what to expect
The world's top court has made it easier for governments to be held legally accountable for failing to tackle the climate crisis – in an a move that experts say will have profound implications for climate-related lawsuits. In its long-awaited legal opinion – requested by small island nations facing existential threats from sea level rise – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said states have binding obligations to act on climate change under international law, and failing to do so could constitute a "wrongful act". In an era of climate science denial and at a time when the United States, one of the world's biggest polluters, is retreating from climate action under Donald Trump, ICJ judge Yuji Iwasawa called the climate crisis an 'urgent and existential threat' and said that greenhouse gas emissions are 'unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.' Sir David King, chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) and former UK scientific adviser, called it a 'moral reckoning', while former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson called it a 'turning point'. But experts also note that the ICJ's opinion is not itself legally binding. So what does this actually mean in real terms? Could countries that are suffering the most from the impacts of the climate crisis now sue others – developed nations in the West – that have benefited the most from the historic burning of fossil fuels? Experts say the most immediate impact of the ICJ opinion will be seen in thousands of climate cases currently being heard across the world. Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the ICJ opinion provides 'a clear legal blueprint to hold major emitters accountable'. 'We will see this used as persuasive authority in domestic and regional courts, and it could also form the basis of new state-versus-state litigation,' she said. She added that courts around the world already use ICJ rulings as persuasive authority and will likely cite this latest opinion when interpreting binding law within their own jurisdictions. Yet it is also clear that one of the most significant possibilities raised by the ICJ ruling is the potential for international legal action between states. Small island nations and African countries – already suffering from the withdrawal of international aid funding – and which have contributed the least to global emissions, could now explore legal action against larger polluters. While litigation between states is complex and expensive, Chowdhury said the court's ruling has "laid the legal pathway" for such cases. "If major polluters do not adjust their conduct based on the court's very clear guidance on what is permissible and what is not, absolutely, they can be sued. This will depend on jurisdictional issues and other technical criteria, but we may well see cases at the ICJ or other forums," she said. That opens the door to legal action over exported emissions, fossil fuel subsidies, or licensing of polluting projects by one state that affects another's territory or citizens. More than 2,600 climate-related cases have already been filed globally, against governments, fossil fuel companies, or both, ranging from youth-led lawsuits in Europe to frontline communities seeking compensation for damages. Chowdhury says the outcome could 'supercharge climate litigation' with more cases coming up against governments and polluters. The court explicitly stated that climate-destructive conduct includes not just emissions but policy-making, licensing and subsidies that fuel the crisis. In other words, governments can now be held responsible if they fail to regulate or curb emissions-intensive industries. One key section of the judgment states: 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Chowdhury called the opinion 'one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times, just because of the scope of the issues it covers'. 'The ICJ has now drawn a legal red line: continuing harmful conduct, including licensing fossil fuel exploration or failing to cut emissions, is not just dangerous – it could be unlawful.' 'This puts the fossil fuel industry on notice,' Chowdhury said. 'It establishes that allowing these activities without proper mitigation or phaseout plans may amount to a breach of international law.' The 500 page long opinion also touched upon a crucial question central to the survival of small island states: If global sea level rise swallows their land, do they still have the right to be called a state? The ICJ said the disappearance of one element of a state, such as territory due to rising seas, does not undermine its legal statehood. This offers powerful support to low-lying countries like Tuvalu and Vanuatu who have been exploring legal remedies to protect their sovereignty and maritime rights. During the hearings, held in December last year, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organisations. Countries like Tuvalu and Zambia used their time before the court to detail the existential threats posed by sea-level rise and climate-linked drought. ' Tuvalu will not go quietly into the rising sea,' its delegation told the court. 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. The ICJ ruling could also significantly influence how countries negotiate new emissions targets, finance pledges and loss and damage mechanisms at the next UN climate summit in Brazil. Andreas Sieber, associate policy director at said the ruling 'raises the stakes' for the upcoming round of negotiations. 'As we head into COP30, this ruling raises the stakes, this is not the time for vague pledges, it's time to start delivering real, legally grounded climate action. That means NDCs must collectively add up to this threshold,' he said. Chowdhury said the ruling dismantles one of the most common arguments used on climate action by powerful nations. "A major approach big players take is to say, 'The Paris Agreement is the only treaty that matters, and it doesn't require us to do very much.' But the court said unequivocally that multiple and complementary legal sources, from human rights law to the Law of the Sea, all apply, and there are binding obligations to act," she said. The ruling could also help unlock progress on climate finance and loss and damage – areas where negotiations have often stalled. Small island states, for example, have long demanded clearer legal backing for financial support and reparations from rich polluters. The ICJ said that countries must act with the 'highest possible ambition' to limit warming to 1.5C. Beyond litigation, the ruling affirms that climate justice is inseparable from human rights. It found that climate change-induced displacement, harm to health, and sea-level rise all trigger protections under existing law. 'This is about survival, dignity, and justice,' Chowdhury said. 'The ICJ has clarified what the law already requires – and now it is up to governments, courts, and communities to make that law real.'
CNN
6 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
5 things to know for July 24: Signal controversy, Epstein files, Birthright citizenship, Thailand-Cambodia, Ohio ‘ambush'
In a landmark advisory opinion issued on Wednesday, the world's highest court said polluting countries may be in breach of international law if they do not protect the planet from the 'existential threat' posed by climate change. It was the first time the International Court of Justice had formally addressed the climate crisis. Here's what else you need to know to get up to speed and on with your day. The national security scandal involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top officials has taken a new turn. In March, the officials discussed a US military attack on Houthi militants in Yemen in a group chat on Signal — a conversation that inadvertently included a journalist. Now, the Pentagon's inspector general has received evidence that the military plans shared from Hegseth's Signal account were taken from a US Central Command document that was marked classified at the time, two people familiar with the ongoing review said. The IG's possession of the file appears to further undercut Hegseth's claims that nothing classified was shared on the publicly available messaging app. When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, she informed him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN. Bondi also said that although the names of several other high-profile figures were mentioned, the investigators did not find a client list or evidence refuting that Epstein died by suicide. The revelations about the meeting contradict Trump's more recent denials that he was told he was in the files. On Wednesday, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the DOJ's files about the disgraced financier and accused sex trafficker. The motion passed, 8-2, with three of the panel's Republicans joining with Democrats. House Oversight Chair James Comer also subpoenaed Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell for a deposition. A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. Birthright citizenship is a nearly 160-year-old practice guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. The 2-1 ruling from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld a nationwide block against the controversial order. In response, the Trump administration may ask the full 9th Circuit to review the case, or it could appeal the matter straight to the US Supreme Court. Deadly violence has flared up once again on the long-disputed border between Thailand and Cambodia. Tensions between the Southeast Asian neighbors took a turn in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed during a brief battle between Thai and Cambodian troops. Both sides claimed to have acted in self-defense. Over the summer, Thailand took control of border checkpoints, imposed restrictions on crossings and threatened to cut electricity and internet to Cambodia's border towns. Cambodia stopped imports of Thai produce and banned Thai movies and TV dramas. Both militaries reinforced troops along the border. Two recent landmine explosions that injured troops prompted the countries to downgrade relations even further and recall diplomatic staff. Then, as deadly clashes erupted along the border today, Thailand deployed fighter jets and bombed Cambodian military targets. Cambodia said it plans to 'respond decisively.' Two Ohio police officers were allegedly ambushed by an armed man in an undeveloped industrial park on Wednesday. According to officials, the gunman waited on a dead-end street and then opened fire on two Lorain officers when they parked their vehicles there to eat lunch. Another officer, who responded to the victims' call for help, was also shot. At this time, the first two officers are listed in critical condition after suffering multiple gunshot wounds. The third officer was shot in the hand and treated at a local medical facility. The shooter has been identified as a 28-year-old man from Lorain. It's not clear if he was killed by the officers or took his own life, only that he 'was shot on scene and was pronounced deceased,' officials said. Plane crashes in Russia's Far EastA Soviet-era passenger plane carrying about 50 people went down in Russia's far eastern Amur region, state media reported on Thursday, citing local officials. The Amur Center for Civil Defense and Fire Safety said on Telegram that a search and rescue helicopter spotted the wreck of the plane on a mountain slope 10 miles from the town of Tynda. GET '5 THINGS' IN YOUR INBOX If your day doesn't start until you're up to speed on the latest headlines, then let us introduce you to your new favorite morning fix. Sign up here for the '5 Things' newsletter. In March, the right-wing podcaster revived a conspiracy theory about France's first lady Brigitte Macron. Salvador Plasencia is one of five people who were charged in relation to the 'Friends' star's death. The tennis superstar revealed the big news after becoming the second-oldest woman to win a tour-level singles match. And the comedian is overjoyed to be entering his dad era. Let's just say it has to do with the Los Angeles Dodgers player's dog. $1.1 billionThat's how much President Trump's tariffs on imported cars and car parts cost General Motors in the second quarter. The automaker said it expects tariffs to cost it as much as $5 billion by the end of the year. 'We don't have access to (drinking) water at all. Water shortage is a huge problem affecting our daily life.' — A Kabul resident, speaking to CNN. According to a report by Mercy Corps, the Afghan city may soon become the first modern capital in the world to run completely dry. 🌤️ Check your local forecast to see what you can expect. Conservationists and veterinarians are fighting to rescue and rehabilitate these adorable creatures. Today's edition of 5 Things AM was edited and produced by CNN's Andrew Torgan.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ministers condemn 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain will be forced to pay massive reparations over climate change
Ministers have condemned a 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain could be forced to pay massive reparations for climate change. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. The Tories have warned Attorney General Lord Hermer's 'ideological obsession' with international law means the government could follow the edict. But touring broadcast studios this morning, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted the UK should not 'apologise or pay reparations' for leading the industrial revolution. He told Times Radio: 'I think that's completely unreasonable and unworkable from a legal point of view. 'Whilst we should obviously take seriously our legacy, our history, the contribution that UK has made to the world on a number of areas, I think the industrial revolution was not a bad thing. 'The fact that we have a modern industrial society is a good thing. We led on that innovation that then has been transferred around the world. But I don't think it's anything to apologise for or pay reparations for.' Challenged that the UK had obeyed a similar advisory ruling on the status of the Chagos Islands, Mr Reynolds said that 'essential national security functions' had been at stake in that case. 'I think any argument that there should be reparations paid for British history and that should fall on the British people today... I think it's a flawed judgment in my view,' he added. Campaigners have hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising 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. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
ABC News
6 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
A climate 'reckoning' just unfolded at the International Court of Justice. What does it mean?
It's been hailed as a "planetary scale" win for climate advocates pushing for stronger action against carbon pollution. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. Observers say it's a clear victory for nations, led by Pacific Island country Vanuatu, that campaigned for the case to be heard at the world's highest court. "It's hard to overstate how momentous this ruling is," said Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW's Institute for Climate Risk and Response. And environmental advocates and experts say the decision will have consequences for Australia — a major exporter of fossil fuels — that could include legal action. So what was the case about? What did the ICJ decide? And what does it mean for climate change action? The ICJ, also known as the World Court, was asked to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail. It's the first time the court has made a decision on a climate change case. It involved a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, and the court's 15 judges spent months poring over tens of thousands of pages of documents before reaching a decision. But, the road to the ICJ started in a classroom back in 2019, when a group of Pacific Islander law students in Vanuatu looked for a way to solve the apparent international "deadlock" on climate change action. They decided to ask the World Court to clarify what responsibilities nations had to address climate change, and soon gained diplomatic support from Vanuatu's government, which led a successful global campaign for the ICJ to hear the case. More than six months after 100 nations made their arguments at the court in December, the judges handed down their long-awaited decision on Wednesday, local time. The ICJ issued a clear and unanimous decision on the issue. It declared countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions. The court also found that failing to do so is a "wrongful act" that could mean polluting nations have to pay reparations to countries harmed by climate change. It rejected arguments put forward by high-emitting nations that it was impossible to attribute greenhouse gas emissions to individual countries. And it said a "clean, healthy and stable environment" is a human right. Importantly for Australia, the ICJ singled out fossil fuels in its decision. The judges found that fossil fuel production and consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The court also found countries are responsible for regulating the emissions of private companies. While the ICJ's 500-page decision is non-binding, observers say it will reach far and wide in its impact. "We have a ruling today that will reverberate around the world and will echo through history," Dr Morgan said. "This is a planetary scale decision. "Today is actually a day of reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and for governments that continue to allow fossil fuel companies to harm the Earth's climate system." Experts say first, it will strengthen the hand of nations vulnerable to climate change in talks such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP. "Those states are able to go into those negotiations armed with this very powerful advisory opinion," Australian National University professor in international law Donald Rothwell said. Vanuatu's special envoy on climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, told the ABC the finding had shifted discussions from one of "voluntary commitments" to reduce emissions, to one about legally binding obligations under international law. And if those talks come to nought, the decision also paves the way for legal action, Professor Rothwell said. "The advisory opinion really opens the door for litigation to proceed by those specially affected states being able to rely upon the very clear outline of the extent of the obligations … that the court talks about in its opinion." Australia co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution referring the case to the ICJ. But it later drew rebuke from climate advocates after its arguments to the court diverged sharply from those of Pacific Island nations. While Vanuatu urged the ICJ to use a broad set of international laws in reaching its decision, Australia argued that nations' obligations largely did not extend beyond major international climate treaties, including the Paris Agreement. The ICJ has not accepted Australia's argument — one that was also put forward by other large carbon-emitting nations. Observers and environmental advocates say the advisory opinion will impact Australia. Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said it made clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production — whether used domestically or exported — due to the significant harm it causes and "regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned". Isabelle Reinecke, executive director and founder of the Grata Fund, said the advisory opinion seriously calls into question the legality of Australia's past and ongoing approval of fossil fuel projects and its subsidies for fossil fuel companies. "It makes crystal clear that so long as the Australian government's efforts to protect the world's climate system fall short of stabilising global heating at 1.5 degrees, it could be liable to litigation from other countries." And shortly after the ICJ handed down its finding, Mr Regenvanu did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries, including Australia. An Australian government spokesperson on Thursday morning said it recognises that climate change "is one of the greatest existential threats to all humanity, and that it's having a significant effect on our region". "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change," the spokesperson said. They said the government would embed serious climate targets in law and make the changes necessary to achieve them. "We will now carefully consider the court's opinion." Pacific countries are celebrating the ICJ's decision after leading the charge for nations vulnerable to climate change at the court. Fiji's prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, said the country was grateful for the advisory opinion. Reverend James Bhagwan, general-secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches and leading climate justice advocate for Pacific Island communities, described it as a "call to conscience". "Now we can really hold states accountable if they are not doing enough. And this can also be applied to companies and industries as well," he said. "If a healthy environment is a human right, then rivers, forests, mountains, and the ocean must be recognised as rights-bearing entities." For Pacific Island nations experiencing major cyclones, coastal inundation and sea level rise, the court case was about survival, Dr Morgan said. "They know that today the Pacific has again shaped global efforts to tackle the climate crisis," he said. Vepaiamele Trief, a 16-year-old Save the Children youth ambassador, said the advisory opinion will pave the way for a safer future for young people. "I really hope to see more climate action from all states, but mainly large polluting states that need to be held accountable for their actions."
Washington Post
7 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
UN's top court says all countries have to act against climate change. Here are the key takeaways.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' top court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, its 15-black-robed judges weighing in for the first time on what the court's president called 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.'
