Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult.
The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.
It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.
The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019.
"Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.
"This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard."
The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week.
Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.
Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem.
But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.
On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.
He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system.
The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.
"The ruling is a watershed legal moment," said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law.
"With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation," she added.
The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.
It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation.
This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful.
Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour.
A simple guide to climate change
Four ways climate change worsens extreme weather
What you can do to reduce carbon emissions
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
An Unexpected Path to Hold War Criminals Accountable
Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at the Capitol to meet with U.S. lawmakers on July 9, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images Tyler McBrien is the managing editor of Lawfare and a 2024-25 Law & Justice Journalism Project Fellow. Many of those watching the horrors unfold in Gaza have hung their highest hopes and deepest frustrations on the world's apex courts: the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Nearly two years into the war, these judicial bodies have neither prevented atrocities from occurring nor punished perpetrators. Journalists and activists amassed ample evidence documenting war crimes committed by the Israeli military, and yet its soldiers continue to operate in Gaza with impunity. It's a mistake to laser-focus on the ICJ, established by the United Nations Charter to settle disputes between states, and the ICC, which prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. Doing so misunderstands and overemphasizes their role. 'The ICC takes up way too much oxygen in discussions of international criminal justice and accountability,' the International Crisis Group's Brian Finucane told me. The myopia also misses important work happening in national courts. It's here at the domestic level where Palestinians have the best chance to see justice, as nation-states attempt to fulfill their international obligations through homegrown investigations and prosecutions. In many ways, the hopes and frustrations lavished on the ICC and ICJ are understandable. 'When people think of international trials, they think of Nuremberg and the signal to the international community that these are the most serious crimes that are being perpetrated,' said Jake Romm, a human rights lawyer and U.S. representative for the Hind Rajab Foundation. Gaza is exactly the kind of grave situation for which these courts were founded, and they have not been completely dormant since October 7, 2023. In early 2024, after South Africa brought a case against Israel alleging that it violated the U.N. Genocide Convention, the ICJ issued several rounds of provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, halt military action, and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. In November that same year, the ICC put out arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (along with three top Hamas commanders) for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. But the wheels of justice in general turn slowly, and, for Palestinians, it can often feel like the wheels of international justice in particular seldom turn at all. The ICJ likely won't rule on the genocide case until the end of 2027 at the earliest. And while the prospects of seeing Netanyahu or Gallant in the dock at The Hague were always dim, they look even dimmer after Hungary, a state party to the Rome Statute, allowed Israel's wanted prime minister safe passage through Budapest, shirking its obligation to arrest him. The ICC also remains embroiled in crisis after its chief prosecutor took leave amid allegations of sexual misconduct, as perennial resource problems and political pressure continue to plague the court and the Trump administration targets the institution with sanctions and other threats. Even special international criminal tribunals, like the ad hoc structures created in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, are subject to a United Nations Security Council veto, an insurmountable hurdle for Palestinians. These international courts have surely not met the moment, but they cannot fight for global justice alone, nor were they designed to. Without an independent enforcement mechanism, international law functions as a voluntary system, dependent on states — as both its subjects and principal agents — to carry it out. And, according to associate professor of criminal law at the University of Milan and senior legal adviser to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights Chantal Meloni, the Rome Statute set out 'a very clear logic that not every international crime committed everywhere in the world can be under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and states have to take their share of the responsibility to prevent and punish these crimes.' National courts, on the other hand, often don't face the same resource constraints and can go after perpetrators up and down the chain of command. The pursuit of justice through domestic courts 'involves potentially hundreds, even thousands of potential suspects as opposed to the ICC, which is only ever going to be dealing with a handful of cases,' said Mark Lattimer, executive director at the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. While states also face their own political pressures, they do not have to perform the ICC's difficult dance of appeasing its many patrons. Lattimer added that domestic efforts can also 'act as a break on double standards' all too present in international courts, especially for countries with a strong, independent judiciary insulated from prevailing geopolitical power shifts and free to pursue the gravest breaches of international law irrespective of the perpetrator's nationality. Read our complete coverage Efforts to activate domestic jurisdiction for international crimes are not new. A growing body of case law has arisen out of extraterritorial prosecutions in the Syrian war, the Balkan wars, various African conflicts, and, of course, World War II. Countries such as Spain and Belgium already had universal jurisdiction laws, which empower national authorities of any country to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes even if they were committed in another country, in place even before the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998. Lawyers and activists are building on this historical precedent by pushing for domestic jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute allegations of atrocities by Israel's military in Gaza, the fruits of which have already led to tangible outcomes across several countries. Last month, Belgian authorities detained and questioned two Israeli soldiers on leave at a music festival in response to a legal complaint filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Global Legal Action Network. The episode may have marked the first time national authorities detained Israeli soldiers on suspicion of crimes committed in Gaza, but these 'traveling soldiers,' some of them dual nationals, have faced other consequences. In January, the Israeli foreign minister helped Yuval Vagdani, as a vacationing soldier, escape from Brazil after learning that a federal judge there had opened a war crimes investigation stemming from another Hind Rajab Foundation legal filing. (Vagdani has denied the allegations in the filing.) In addition to filing a complaint with the ICC against more than 1,000 members of Israel's military, the Hind Rajab Foundation has filed complaints and arrest requests with the national authorities of at least 23 countries. In response to these activities and others, the Israeli government issued advisories for soldiers traveling to certain jurisdictions with legal resources and other advice. 'They're spooked,' said Romm. 'National legal systems are coming online to possibly arrest and incarcerate these Israeli soldiers for what they're doing to the Palestinians for the first time in history.' Though no complaint has resulted in a prosecution yet, these cases will likely continue and may even pick up speed. In July, 30 countries convened by The Hague Group committed to supporting 'universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory.' Of course, the current political environment in several countries make any investigations of Israeli soldiers impossible, regardless of questions of jurisdiction and prosecutorial capacity. In April, the Hind Rajab Foundation filed an urgent request with the Justice Department to prosecute the Israeli soldier Yuval Shatel under U.S. federal law after learning he was spotted in Texas days prior. According to a press release from the foundation, the filing included a dossier of evidence in support of allegations that Shatel committed 'serious violations of international humanitarian law during Israel's military campaign in Gaza.' (Shatel and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment). At the same time, the Hind Rajab Foundation is not naive. The chance of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the Justice Department to investigate its allegations against Shatel seems slim at best, especially since the U.S. War Crimes Act, passed in 1996, laid dormant until December 2023, when the Justice Department indicted four Russians for alleged violations of the federal war crimes statute — the first (and only) prosecution in the law's 30-year history. The apparent unwillingness to apply the statute elsewhere drew criticism as Israel's military campaign in Gaza intensified. On October 21, 2024, Justice Department attorneys wrote a letter to Bondi's predecessor, Merrick Garland, 'calling out the 'glaring gap' between the department's approach to crimes committed by Russia and Hamas — versus the department's silence on potential crimes committed by Israeli forces and civilians.' The Hind Rajab Foundation's request aims to close that gap. 'There is a discrepancy between what the letter of the law says and how the U.S. is acting,' said Romm. 'We filed this because we want them to prosecute, and because they can. They have jurisdiction, and the crimes are very clear.' The Shatel case is HRF's first U.S. prosecution request, but Romm says it won't be the last. 'All I can say is there will be more,' he told me. 'We're going to try to get everyone we possibly can.' 'Despite the fact that this carnage has gone on for almost two years now, it's still, by the standards of justice, in the early days.' There is no statute of limitations for the gravest transgressions of international law. For perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, the prosecutor's sword of Damocles will hang over them for a lifetime. In December, German courts cleared the way for a 100-year-old former Nazi to stand trial nearly 80 years after the end of WWII. 'Despite the fact that this carnage has gone on for almost two years now, it's still, by the standards of justice, in the early days,' said Finucane. 'When it comes to atrocity crime accountability, there are very long tails, and these things spool over the course of decades.' For anyone demanding justice and accountability for Israel's crimes in Gaza, the message is clear: Let a thousand prosecutions bloom.
The Verge
4 hours ago
- The Verge
Nvidia rejects possibility of AI chip backdoor
Nvidia's chief security officer has published a blog post insisting that its GPUs 'do not and should not have kill switches and backdoors.' It comes amid pressure from both sides of the Pacific, with some US lawmakers pushing Nvidia to grant the government backdoors to AI chips, while Chinese officials have alleged that they already exist. David Reber Jr.'s post seems pointedly directed at US lawmakers. In May a bipartisan group introduced the Chip Security Act, a bill that would require Nvidia and other manufacturers to include tracking technology to identify when chips are illegally transported internationally, and leaves the door open for further security measures including remote kill switches. While Nvidia is expecting to be granted permits to once again sell certain AI chips in China, its most powerful hardware is still under strict US export controls there and elsewhere. 'To mitigate the risk of misuse, some pundits and policymakers propose requiring hardware 'kill switches' or built-in controls that can remotely disable GPUs without user knowledge and consent,' wrote Reber Jr. 'Some suspect they might already exist,' he continues, in a nod to a probe already launched in China over alleged 'loopholes and backdoor' vulnerabilities in the H20 chips that have been sold in the country. 'There is no such thing as a 'good' secret backdoor,' Reber Jr. argues, 'only dangerous vulnerabilities that need to be eliminated.' He goes on to call kill switches 'an open invitation for disaster,' before making it explicit that his intended audience is US policymakers: 'That's not sound policy. It's an overreaction that would irreparably harm America's economic and national security interests.' Both Nvidia and the US government would like the company to be the dominant supplier of AI chips to China, but the suggestion of direct US access to the hardware might put that at risk. Chinese chip companies are steadily improving their performance and production capacity, as China looks for a homegrown alternative. That raises the possibility that Nvidia will be usurped in the market by Huawei, a company that knows a thing or two about losing market share over alleged government access. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Dominic Preston Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All AI Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Nvidia Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Security Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Washington Post
A study predicted huge climate damages. But it had a fatal flaw: Uzbekistan.
A year ago, a paper published in the journal Nature made a sweeping claim: The world economy was already on track to lose 19 percent of global gross domestic product by 2050, compared with what it would have been without climate change. By 2100, under a high emissions scenario, it predicted that global GDP would be roughly 62 percent lower than without climate change. Those numbers were a whopping three times higher than previous estimates — sparking concern that climate change would hinder the global economy much more than expected. The paper made waves across social media; according to one analysis by the U.K.-based outlet CarbonBrief, it was the second-most cited paper in the media in 2024. The paper's analysis and dataset, meanwhile, have been used for financial planning by the U.S. government, World Bank and other institutions. There was just one problem, according to a new analysis: The paper's findings were flawed. A new commentary published Wednesday in Nature found that the massive damages predicted by the paper were predicated on data errors stemming from one country — Uzbekistan. With Uzbekistan removed from the dataset, the predictions dropped substantially — from 62 percent GDP loss in 2100 to 23 percent and from 19 percent by 2050 to 6 percent, said Solomon Hsiang, director of the global policy laboratory at Stanford University and one of the authors of the new commentary. 'Everybody who works with data has some responsibility to look at the data and make sure it's fit for purpose,' Hsiang said. The authors of the original paper, however, argue that their analysis still holds. Karl Ziemelis, chief applied and physical sciences editor at Nature, wrote in an email that the journal was reviewing the study, and 'appropriate editorial action would be taken once the matter was resolved.' 'Science has worked, and always will work, through a process of constant interrogation and review, whether that be during the course of research, in peer review or in post publication assessment,' Ziemelis added. Hsiang and his co-authors, graduate students Tom Bearpark and Dylan Hogan, , discovered the error by removing one country at a time from the dataset. Every other country they removed only slightly changed the GDP predictions. But when Uzbekistan was taken out, the results changed dramatically. They then looked closer at the Uzbekistan data. The paper's dataset showed the country's GDP plummeting dramatically in the year 2000, losing almost 90 percent. Then in 2010, it showed the GDP climbing in some regions by over 90 percent. Other years also showed wild oscillations. According to the World Bank, the country's growth over the past 40 years has actually been quite modest — ranging from a 0.2 percent loss to a 7.7 percent growth. Those swings were so dramatic in the initial paper's data that they dominated the underlying model, which connected temperature and precipitation changes with economic growth. That resulted in a model that showed GDP would take sharp hits from climate change. Hsiang found the results surprising. 'When you have a lot of data points, the idea that a small country could be so influential is not intuitive,' Hsiang said. That's why, he said, it's essential to rigorously test the results and the data. The authors of the original paper, scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, have a different take. The error in the Uzbekistan data, they said, was due to problems with how the original data was processed. In an additional analysis, they corrected the Uzbekistan data, and also changed how their model controlled for underlying economic trends. 'We find actually that by doing that, our estimates in general get more robust,' said Maximilian Kotz, a postdoctoral researcher at the Potsdam Institute. Using this altered method, they found results that agreed closely with their original findings. Instead of 19 percent damages by 2050, for example, the new analysis shows 17 percent. 'We are grateful, and I think it's a good part of the scientific process that they've pointed out these issues,' said Leonie Wenz, professor of environmental economics at the Technical University of Berlin and another author of the initial study. 'But importantly, the main conclusions of the paper hold, and there are only slight changes to the estimates.' That change, however, required modifying the methodology of the paper, and critics are still skeptical. 'Science doesn't work by changing the setup of an experiment to get the answer you want,' Hsiang said. 'This approach is antithetical to the scientific method.' Concerns about the large magnitude of the GDP changes were already clear in the peer review process. In a peer review document, posted publicly by Nature, one anonymous reviewer wrote, 'I find all of this well explained and fairly convincing, yet, purely subjectively, I have a hard time in believing the results, which seem unintuitively large given damages aren't perfectly persistent.' After some back-and-forth with the authors, the reviewer later approved of the paper going to publication. Hsiang says the study is an important example of how science corrects itself, and that 'The fact that there's one car accident due to driver error doesn't mean that we think cars are fundamentally dysfunctional.' 'If people are at all skeptical about how science functions — the answer is well, our team discovered this issue, and we believe transparency is super important,' he said. 'That's the ethos of science.'
