World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the
International Court of Justice
comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action.
How has
climate litigation
evolved?
Andrew Raine, deputy director of the
UN Environment Programme
's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
"When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP.
These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel.
Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more.
Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year.
And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations.
Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies.
"This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said.
Why have recent cases been deemed historic?
Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities.
Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans.
The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations.
Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions.
Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature.
But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University.
The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said.
In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction.
All eyes are now on the ICJ.
What could be the impact?
Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions.
But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages.
"These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions.
While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight.
"They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said.
"It doesn't force states to act, but it shows them where the law stands and where they should be headed."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Europe hopes for 'no surprises' as US weighs force withdrawals
After keeping Donald Trump happy with a pledge to up defence spending at NATO's summit, Europe is now bracing for a key decision from the US president on the future of American forces on the continent. Washington is currently conducting a review of its military deployments worldwide -- set to be unveiled in coming months -- and the expectation is it will lead to drawdowns in Europe. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Technology PGDM Product Management Others Cybersecurity Digital Marketing others Finance Healthcare MBA Leadership Artificial Intelligence Data Analytics Operations Management Data Science healthcare MCA CXO Design Thinking Data Science Public Policy Management Project Management Degree Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details That prospect is fraying the nerves of US allies, especially as fears swirl that Russia could look to attack a NATO country within the next few years if the war in Ukraine dies down. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo However, the alliance is basking in Trump's newfound goodwill following its June summit in The Hague, and his officials are making encouraging noises that Europe will not be left in the lurch. "We've agreed to no surprises and no gaps in the strategic framework of Europe," said Matthew Whitaker, US ambassador to NATO, adding he expected the review to come out in "late summer, early fall". Live Events "I have daily conversations with our allies about the process," he said. While successive US governments have mulled scaling back in Europe to focus more on China, Trump has insisted more forcefully than his predecessors that the continent should handle its own defence. "There's every reason to expect a withdrawal from Europe," said Marta Mucznik from the International Crisis Group. "The question is not whether it's going to happen, but how fast." When Trump returned to office in January many felt he was about to blow a hole in the seven-decade-old alliance. But the vibe in NATO circles is now far more upbeat than those desperate days. "There's a sanguine mood, a lot of guesswork, but the early signals are quite positive," one senior European diplomat told AFP, talking as others on condition of anonymity. "Certainly no panic or doom and gloom." 'Inevitable' The Pentagon says there are nearly 85,000 US military personnel in Europe -- a number that has fluctuated between 75,000 and 105,000 since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. "I think it is inevitable that they pull out some of their forces," a second European diplomat told AFP. "But I don't expect this to be like a dramatic overhaul. I think it's going to be gradual. I think it's going to be based on consultations." Trump's first target is likely to be the troops left over from a surge ordered by his predecessor Joe Biden after Moscow's tanks rolled into Ukraine. Officials say relocating the rump of that 20,000-strong deployment would not hurt NATO's deterrence too much -- but alarm bells would ring if Trump looked to cut too deep into personnel numbers or close key bases. The issue is not just troop numbers -- the US has capabilities such as air defences, long-range missiles and satellite surveillance that allies would struggle to replace in the short-term. "The kinds of defence investments by Europe that are being made coming out of The Hague summit may only be felt in real capability terms over many years," said Ian Lesser from the German Marshall Fund think tank. "So the question of timing really does matter." 'Inopportune moment' Washington's desire to pull back from Europe may be tempered by Trump now taking a tougher line with Russia -- and Moscow's reluctance to bow to his demands to end the Ukraine war. "It seems an inopportune moment to send signals of weakness and reductions in the American security presence in Europe," Lesser said. He also pointed to Trump's struggles during his first term to pull troops out of Germany -- the potential bill for relocating them along with political resistance in Washington scuppering the plan. While European diplomats are feeling more confident than before about the troop review, they admit nothing can be certain with the mercurial US president. Other issues such as Washington's trade negotiations with the EU could rock transatlantic ties in the meantime and upend the good vibes. "It seems positive for now," said a third European diplomat. "But what if we are all wrong and a force decrease will start in 2026. To be honest, there isn't much to go on at this stage."
Mint
42 minutes ago
- Mint
US, China eye tariff détente in Stockholm meeting today as August deadline looms. What to expect?
Top US and Chinese officials are meeting Monday in Stockholm to try to extend their fragile tariff detente beyond a mid-August deadline and explore broader steps to ease trade tensions. The Stockholm negotiations come just days after Trump secured his largest trade deal to date with the European Union. Under that agreement, most EU goods exports to the U.S., including automobiles, will face a 15% tariff. In return, the EU has committed to purchasing $750 billion in American energy and making $600 billion in U.S. investments over the coming years. Meanwhile, Washington and Beijing are expected to extend their current tariff truce by another three months, according to a report by the South China Morning Post, citing unnamed sources familiar with the talks. One source told the newspaper that neither side will impose new tariffs during the extension period. The existing pause in tariff escalation, originally set to expire on August 12, has helped prevent further deterioration in trade relations as both sides continue negotiating over broader economic and geopolitical disputes. The talks, led by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, mark the third high-level meeting in less than three months. The agenda includes negotiating the duration of the current tariff freeze and addressing contentious issues such as US tariffs linked to fentanyl trafficking and China's continued purchases of sanctioned Russian and Iranian Oil. If no agreement is reached, global supply chains could once again be thrown into disarray, as U.S. tariffs are set to revert to punitive triple-digit levels, effectively amounting to a bilateral trade embargo. Still, Bessent said in recent days that the US would use this week's huddle to work out what's 'likely an extension' to the current tariff pause, adding: 'I think trade is in a very good place with China.' Any progress in this week's US-China negotiations could lay the groundwork for a potential meeting between Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, possibly timed with a major summit in South Korea later this year. Xi extended an invitation for Trump and First Lady Melania Trump to visit China during a phone call last month, though no date has been confirmed. Sweden's role as host for the talks became clearer after Swedish Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson revealed that both U.S. and Chinese officials approached her during the recent G20 gathering in South Africa to propose Sweden as a neutral ground for the negotiations. The meetings in Stockholm mark a quiet but significant moment in the ongoing efforts to manage trade tensions and avoid a renewed tariff escalation. US Ambassador David Perdue, who arrived in Beijing in May, presented his credentials to Xi on Friday, China's envoy to the US posted on X. At the core of the ongoing negotiations between the world's two largest economies lies a high-stakes standoff over critical technologies. Beijing's tight control over rare-earth magnets vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced military systems clashes with Washington's sweeping export restrictions on cutting-edge semiconductors crucial to artificial intelligence development. Reducing the 20% fentanyl tariffs Trump imposed over US claims Chinese companies supply chemicals used to make the illegal drug is also a high priority for Beijing, Eurasia Group analysts wrote in a note last week, citing recent meetings with Ministry of Public Security officials. Ministry officials travelled to the Geneva talks in May and will likely go to Stockholm, the analysts wrote, as reported by Bloomberg. While China has denied it is responsible for the flow of the deadly drug, last month it tightened controls over two chemicals that can be used to make the opioid. Earlier this month, Trump praised those moves. 'China has been helping out,' he told reporters. 'We're talking to them and they're making big steps.' For the US, the recent Chinese actions aren't enough, as such moves were required to comply with United Nations measures, according to a person familiar with the trade talks. Chances of reducing the 20% tariff in this round of talks are very slim, added the person who asked not to be identified, discussing sensitive matters, while noting everything could change on Trump's whim, Bloomberg reported. China would be willing to cooperate more on fentanyl, said Sun Chenghao, a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, but the US would have to remove the related tariffs, stop blaming Beijing for what it sees as a US domestic problem and provide concrete evidence of crimes. The US business community remains hopeful for progress, with Sean Stein, president of the US-China Business Council, telling Bloomberg TV that movement on fentanyl presents the 'biggest opportunity' in talks. 'That then lowers tariffs on the US side, which then opens the door for China to lower tariffs that lets us sell agriculture, lets us sell airplanes, lets us sell automobiles, that let's us sell energy,' he said. As US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent opened the latest round of trade talks, he signalled a broader negotiating agenda including Beijing's ongoing purchases of sanctioned Russian and Iranian oil. But China has made clear it won't entertain US pressure on that front. 'China won't play along,' warned Lv Xiang, a US affairs expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, speaking to state-run Global Times, firmly rejecting any effort to use China as leverage against Russia's economy. At the same time, energy trade between the U.S. and China has sharply declined. In June, Chinese imports of American crude oil, LNG, and coal dropped to nearly zero, the first time in nearly three years, with tariffs of 10–15% imposed by Beijing in February dampening purchases. The energy gap highlights how geopolitical friction is deepening the divide, even as negotiators seek to keep broader trade tensions from reigniting. Xi's government has begun rolling back some of its other retaliatory measures since the two sides met last month in London. Crucially, Beijing has boosted shipments of rare earth magnets, while the US relaxed restrictions on sales of less-advanced semiconductors to China. In another potential goodwill gesture, as the Sweden talks were announced this month, China revealed it had suspended an antitrust investigation into the local unit of US chemical manufacturer DuPont de Nemours Inc. China's colossal manufacturing output will also be a talking point for Trump's team. I think trade is in a very good place with China. Bessent said the US hopes to see China 'pull back on some of this glut of manufacturing that they're doing and concentrate on building a consumer economy.' (With inputs from Bloomberg)
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Good if US trade pact sealed by Aug 1, but nation first: Goyal
Commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal on Sunday said it would be good if India and the US can do a trade agreement before August 1 but New Delhi's priority is to protect its national and public interests. "Koi deadline ke hisab se Bharat negotiate nahi karta (India doesn't negotiate its trade agreements based on deadlines)," Goyal added at an event in Mumbai on the opportunities for exports in the UK market following the bilateral free trade agreement. He was responding to a question about the August 1 deadline when the US' reciprocal tariffs imposed on most countries, including India, are expected to come into force. The minister said the talks are going well with the US and India will do a good bilateral trade agreement (BTA) by October-November. American trade negotiators are slated to visit India in August for the next round of negotiations for the proposed BTA, the first tranche of which is aimed to be concluded by October. The fifth round of talks concluded in Washington last week. The countries aim to more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion. The two sides were working to finalise an interim trade deal before August 1. "Our discussions with the United States are progressing very well. I am fully confident that by the October-November 2025 timeline, we will secure a good agreement," Goyal said. This was his first outreach programme with industry after the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was signed on July 24. Exporters from gems and jewellery and marine sectors, among others, participated in the event. "It is the most comprehensive free trade agreement India has ever entered with 30 chapters, including environment, gender, anti-corruption," Goyal said about CETA. "It has so many positives and new things that today the world wants to do business with India." He said India is in the process of finalising trade agreements with developed countries with whom it doesn't compete but complement. Whether it is New Zealand, Oman, the US, or the EU, India's agreements will be made with a "well-thought-out strategy" as the country negotiates from a position of strength and confidence, the minister said. He alleged that the previous UPA government had left Indian trade, farmers and fishermen to the mercy of a non-market economy by its move to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade agreement between Asean countries and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
