World Court climate opinion turns up legal heat on governments
FILE PHOTO: Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025. REUTERS/Marta Fiorin/File Photo
A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies.
The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry.
It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding.
While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law.
Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings on a case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas.
It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling.
Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law.
Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do.
The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts.
Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations.
Not all U.S. states are skeptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases.
In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control.
Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels.
The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions.
In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding.
"The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network.
In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient.
The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said.
"This is definitely going to help there," Fournier said of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case.
'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT'
The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as skepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States.
A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues.
He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled.
"This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said.
The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel.
Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them.
The World Court said that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production.
Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments.
"This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licenses to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous.
TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
6 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
NATO to Coordinate Regular and Large-Scale Arm Deliveries to Ukraine. Most Will Be Bought in the US
BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO has started coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine after the Netherlands said it would provide air defense equipment, ammunition and other military aid worth 500 million euros ($578 million). Sweden also announced Tuesday it would contribute $275 million to a joint effort along with its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway to provide $500 million worth of air defenses, anti-tank weapons, ammunition and spare parts. Two deliveries of equipment, most of it bought in the United States, are expected this month, although the Nordic package is expected to arrive in September. The equipment is supplied based on Ukraine's priority needs on the battlefield. NATO allies then locate the weapons and ammunition and send them on. 'Packages will be prepared rapidly and issued on a regular basis,' NATO said Monday. Air defense systems are in greatest need. The United Nations has said that Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians. Russia's bigger army is also making slow but costly progress along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Currently, it is waging an operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a logistical hub whose fall could allow it to drive deeper into Ukraine. European allies and Canada are buying most of the equipment they plan to send from the United States, which has greater stocks of ready military materiel, as well as more effective weapons. The Trump administration is not giving any arms to Ukraine. The new deliveries will come on top of other pledges of military equipment. The Kiel Institute, which tracks support to Ukraine, estimates that as of June, European countries had provided 72 billion euros ($83 billion) worth of military aid since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, compared to $65 billion in U.S. aid. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said that 'American air defense systems and munitions, in particular, are crucial for Ukraine to defend itself.' Announcing the deliveries Monday, he said Russia's attacks are 'pure terror, intended to break Ukraine.' President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to the Netherlands, posting on social media that 'Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror.' He said the deliveries are coming 'at a time when Russia is trying to scale up its strikes. This will definitely help protect the lives of our people!' Germany said Friday it will deliver two more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine in the coming days. It agreed to the move after securing assurances that the U.S. will prioritize the delivery of new Patriots to Germany to backfill its stocks. These weapon systems are only made in the U.S. As an organization, NATO provides only non-lethal assistance to Ukraine like uniforms, tents, medical supplies and logistics support. The 32-nation military alliance has mostly sought to protect NATO territory from possible Russian attack and avoid being dragged into a war against a nuclear power. But its support role has expanded since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January, even as his administration insists European allies must now take care of their own security and that of their war-ravaged neighbor. Trump has made no public promise of weapons or economic support for Ukraine. Trump said on July 28 that the U.S. is 'going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine.'
Japan Today
04-08-2025
- Japan Today
U.S. gov't may be abandoning global climate fight, but new leaders are filling the void
By Shannon Gibson Chinese President Xi Jinping, center, meets with visiting President of the European Council Antonio Costa, left, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, right, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on July 24. When President Donald Trump announced in early 2025 that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time, it triggered fears that the move would undermine global efforts to slow climate change and diminish America's global influence. A big question hung in the air: Who would step into the leadership vacuum? I study the dynamics of global environmental politics, including through the United Nations climate negotiations. While it's still too early to fully assess the long-term impact of the United States' political shift when it comes to global cooperation on climate change, there are signs that a new set of leaders is rising to the occasion. World responds to another U.S. withdrawal The U.S. first committed to the Paris Agreement in a joint announcement by President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping in 2015. At the time, the U.S. agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and pledged financial support to help developing countries adapt to climate risks and embrace renewable energy. Some people praised the U.S. engagement, while others criticized the original commitment as too weak. Since then, the U.S. has cut emissions by 17.2% below 2005 levels – missing the goal, in part because its efforts have been stymied along the way. Just two years after the landmark Paris Agreement, Trump stood in the Rose Garden in 2017 and announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing concerns that jobs would be lost, that meeting the goals would be an economic burden, and that it wouldn't be fair because China, the world's largest emitter today, wasn't projected to start reducing its emissions for several years. Scientists and some politicians and business leaders were quick to criticize the decision, calling it 'shortsighted' and 'reckless.' Some feared that the Paris Agreement, signed by almost every country, would fall apart. But it did not. In the United States, businesses such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Tesla made their own pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Hawaii passed legislation to become the first state to align with the agreement. A coalition of U.S. cities and states banded together to form the United States Climate Alliance to keep working to slow climate change. Globally, leaders from Italy, Germany and France rebutted Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement could be renegotiated. Others from Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand doubled down on their own support of the global climate accord. In 2020, President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the agreement. Now, with Trump pulling the U.S. out again – and taking steps to eliminate U.S. climate policies, boost fossil fuels and slow the growth of clean energy at home – other countries are stepping up. On July 24, China and the European Union issued a joint statement vowing to strengthen their climate targets and meet them. They alluded to the U.S., referring to 'the fluid and turbulent international situation today' in saying that 'the major economies … must step up efforts to address climate change.' In some respects, this is a strength of the Paris Agreement – it is a legally nonbinding agreement based on what each country decides to commit to. Its flexibility keeps it alive, as the withdrawal of a single member does not trigger immediate sanctions, nor does it render the actions of others obsolete. The agreement survived the first U.S. withdrawal, and so far, all signs point to it surviving the second one. Who's filling the leadership vacuum From what I've seen in international climate meetings and my team's research, it appears that most countries are moving forward. One bloc emerging as a powerful voice in negotiations is the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries – a group of low- and middle-income countries that includes China, India, Bolivia and Venezuela. Driven by economic development concerns, these countries are pressuring the developed world to meet its commitments to both cut emissions and provide financial aid to poorer countries. China, motivated by economic and political factors, seems to be happily filling the climate power vacuum created by the U.S. exit. In 2017, China voiced disappointment over the first U.S. withdrawal. It maintained its climate commitments and pledged to contribute more in climate finance to other developing countries than the U.S. had committed to – $3.1 billion compared with $3 billion. This time around, China is using leadership on climate change in ways that fit its broader strategy of gaining influence and economic power by supporting economic growth and cooperation in developing countries. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has scaled up renewable energy exports and development in other countries, such as investing in solar power in Egypt and wind energy development in Ethiopia. While China is still the world's largest coal consumer, it has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy at home, including solar, wind and electrification. In 2024, about half the renewable energy capacity built worldwide was in China. While it missed the deadline to submit its climate pledge due this year, China has a goal of peaking its emissions before 2030 and then dropping to net-zero emissions by 2060. It is continuing major investments in renewable energy, both for its own use and for export. The U.S. government, in contrast, is cutting its support for wind and solar power. China also just expanded its carbon market to encourage emissions cuts in the cement, steel and aluminum sectors. The British government has also ratcheted up its climate commitments as it seeks to become a clean energy superpower. In 2025, it pledged to cut emissions 77% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Its new pledge is also more transparent and specific than in the past, with details on how specific sectors, such as power, transportation, construction and agriculture, will cut emissions. And it contains stronger commitments to provide funding to help developing countries grow more sustainably. In terms of corporate leadership, while many American businesses are being quieter about their efforts, in order to avoid sparking the ire of the Trump administration, most appear to be continuing on a green path – despite the lack of federal support and diminished rules. USA Today and Statista's 'America's Climate Leader List' includes about 500 large companies that have reduced their carbon intensity – carbon emissions divided by revenue – by 3% from the previous year. The data shows that the list is growing, up from about 400 in 2023. What to watch at the 2025 climate talks The Paris Agreement isn't going anywhere. Given the agreement's design, with each country voluntarily setting its own goals, the U.S. never had the power to drive it into obsolescence. The question is if developed and developing country leaders alike can navigate two pressing needs – economic growth and ecological sustainability – without compromising their leadership on climate change. This year's U.N. climate conference in Brazil, COP30, will show how countries intend to move forward and, importantly, who will lead the way. Shannon Gibson is Professor of Environmental Studies, Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Research assistant Emerson Damiano, a recent graduate in environmental studies at USC, contributed to this article. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Japan Today
30-07-2025
- Japan Today
World Court climate opinion turns up legal heat on governments
By Alison Withers and Stephanie van den Berg FILE PHOTO: Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025. REUTERS/Marta Fiorin/File Photo A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding. While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law. Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings on a case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas. It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling. Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law. Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do. The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts. Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations. Not all U.S. states are skeptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases. In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control. Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels. The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions. In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding. "The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient. The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said. "This is definitely going to help there," Fournier said of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case. 'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT' The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as skepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States. A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues. He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled. "This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said. The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel. Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them. The World Court said that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production. Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments. "This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licenses to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous. TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
