World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.
'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor.
In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels.
In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider.
They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?
Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.
PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION
In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
So far, the results have been mixed.
A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits.
Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change.
Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold.
"The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ.
Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.
"This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said.
The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).
(Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen; editing by Barbara Lewis)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
22 minutes ago
- The Star
Syria's defence ministry and Kurdish-led SDF trade blame over attack in northern Syria
(Reuters) -Syria's defence ministry and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces traded blame over an attack in the northern city of Manbij on Saturday, casting a shadow over a landmark integration deal they signed in March. The defence ministry accused the SDF of carrying out a rocket barrage on one of the army's outposts in the city's countryside, injuring four troops and three civilians, according to the state news agency SANA. It described the attack as irresponsible and without justification. The U.S.-backed SDF said in a statement they were responding to "an unprovoked artillery assault targeting civilian-populated areas with more than ten shells" from factions operating within Syrian government ranks. The statement made no mention of any casualties. In March, the SDF signed a deal with the Damascus Islamist-led government to join Syria's state institutions. The deal aims to stitch back together a country fractured by 14 years of war, paving the way for Kurdish-led forces that hold a quarter of Syria to merge with Damascus, along with regional Kurdish governing bodies. However, the deal did not specify how the SDF will be merged with Syria's armed forces. The SDF has previously said its forces must join as a bloc, while Damascus wants them to join as individuals. A Turkish defence ministry source said last month the SDF must prove it is adhering to the agreement with the Syrian government. Ankara deems the SDF an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party. "While we reaffirm our commitment to respecting the current de-escalation arrangements, we call on the relevant authorities in the Syrian government to take responsibility and bring the undisciplined factions under their control," the SDF said in its statement. (Reporting by Ahmed Tolba and Hatem Maher; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Bill Berkrot)
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at leastfive men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported toSouth Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people 'so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back.' Critics have countered that it's not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. 'If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,' McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador's maximum-security prison and a detention center in the subtropical Florida Everglades. FAR FROM HOME DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were 'the worst of the worst' and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. 'American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone,' Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. 'A VERY RANDOM OUTCOME' The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countrieswithout giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to 'self deport' to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. 'This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam,' said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that beganunder former President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. 'Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens,' said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommateduring a fight in 2004. When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. 'If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico,' Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. Shesaid Mexico is trying to get her brother home. 'Mexico never rejected my brother,' Gutierrez said. 'USING US AS A PAWN' Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public. "The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees,' said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administrationin Julypressed other African nations to take migrants and has askedthe Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are 'impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.' Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was 'using us as a pawn?' His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, 'taking it day by day.' (Reporting by Kristina Cooke in San Francisco and Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Brendan O'Boyle and Lizbeth Diaz in Mexico City, Marc Frank in Havana, Phuong Nguyen and Khanh Vu in Hanoi, Panu Wongcha-um in Bangkok, Kirsty Neeham in Sydney; Editing by Mary Milliken and Claudia Parsons)
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
Ukraine says it uncovers major drone procurement corruption scheme
A student of the school for drone pilots practices during a lesson, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in an undisclosed location, Ukraine, June 30, 2023. REUTERS/Alina Smutko KYIV (Reuters) -Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies said on Saturday they had uncovered a major graft scheme that procured military drones and signal jamming systems at inflated prices, two days after the agencies' independence was restored following major protests. The independence of Ukraine's anti-graft investigators and prosecutors, NABU and SAPO, was reinstated by parliament on Thursday after a move to take it away resulted in the country's biggest demonstrations since Russia's invasion in 2022. In a statement published by both agencies on social media, NABU and SAPO said they had caught a sitting lawmaker, two local officials and an unspecified number of national guard personnel taking bribes. None of them were identified in the statement. "The essence of the scheme was to conclude state contracts with supplier companies at deliberately inflated prices," it said, adding that the offenders had received kickbacks of up to 30% of a contract's cost. Four people had been arrested. "There can only be zero tolerance for corruption, clear teamwork to expose corruption and, as a result, a just sentence," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wrote on Telegram. Zelenskiy, who has far-reaching wartime presidential powers and still enjoys broad approval among Ukrainians, was forced into a rare political about-face when his attempt to bring NABU and SAPO under the control of his prosecutor-general sparked the first nationwide protests of the war. Zelenskiy subsequently said that he had heard the people's anger, and submitted a bill restoring the agencies' former independence, which was voted through by parliament on Thursday. Ukraine's European allies praised the move, having voiced concerns about the original stripping of the agencies' status. Top European officials had told Zelenskiy that Ukraine was jeopardising its bid for European Union membership by curbing the powers of its anti-graft authorities. "It is important that anti-corruption institutions operate independently, and the law adopted on Thursday guarantees them every opportunity for a real fight against corruption," Zelenskiy wrote on Saturday after meeting the heads of the agencies, who briefed him on the latest investigation. (Reporting by Max Hunder; editing by Mark Heinrich)
