Ruling allows country to sue each other over climate change
A landmark ruling has been released by the International Court of Justice which clears the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. Correspondent William Denselow spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Climate activists compared to medieval crusaders by minister
Resources Minister Shane Jones says climate change activists are waging a Holy War. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Resources Minister Shane Jones has compared climate activists to medieval crusaders, saying they are waging a Holy War. But protesters have hit back, claiming it's the government that's stuck in the dark ages. For nine days, two activists from the group Climate Liberation Aotearoa had been camped in coal buckets at Stockton Mine , north of Westport. They were protesting Bathurst Resources' plans to expand the mine under the government's fast track law. Activists claimed miners were waging a campaign of harassment, including firing a shotgun in the area to intimidate them. But Bathurst Resources chief executive Richard Tacon dismissed the claims of a firearm being used, saying it was bird-scaring to keep animals away from the area. Jones said the protesters were putting jobs at risk. "I think we're going to see more of this and I just say to the protesters today we posted the worst possible unemployment stats since 2020, as we deal with the Covid hangover, you're putting jobs at risk. Why is your moral crusade more important than the hundreds of jobs at stake in the event that this mine cannot operate efficiently?" Jones said. "A level of arrogance, a level of moral superiority that deserves our condemnation." He expressed surprise that police had not been able to trespass the protesters. "Let's face it - these climate change debates are turning into a holy war, some sort of medieval crusade. And it's just something that we're going to have to cope with until such time more New Zealanders stand up for economic resilience and not luxury beliefs," Jones said. He did not agree with any of the protesters' concerns. "This is coking coal," Jones said. "The last time I checked, capitalism was built on steel. And all we're doing is taking highly desirable coking coal, selling it to people who regard it as a cleaner sort of coal for steel production and yes, we're entitled to protest... but I do feel in this case where it threatens the feasibility of ongoing employment, I think their moral crusade is more about personal arrogance now." Two Climate Liberation Aotearoa protesters used the aerial rope way down to Ngakawau to access a coal bucket for a sit-in protest. Photo: Supplied Adam Currie, of activist group Aotearoa 350, claimed protesters were the ones supporting a stable jobs and a sustainable economy. "We're the ones standing up for economic resilience. The West Coast deserves better than boom and bust coal cycles," he said. "I'd say to the minister that we all deserve good, stable jobs that we can rely on for decades to come, and yet boom and bust coal cycles do not provide that. We need clean, good jobs that we can rely on, such as care work, such as health work, such as investing in the coast - which this government's consistently refused to do - and so it's incredibly hypocritical that he's calling us the ones that are bad for the economy. "We're the ones that really believe in the coast and we really believe in an economic future that's not reliant on coal and this is coal that is not keeping the lights on in New Zealand. It is coal that is completely 100 percent for export and it's for the benefit of Australian and Singaporean foreign investors. This is not helping New Zealand." He dismissed comparison of protesters to Crusaders. "It's this government that is stuck in the Middle Ages by continuing to burn boom and bust coal for the benefit of foreign investors," Currie said. "It's this government that is stuck in the Middle Ages for continuing to focus on dodgy coal mining that is bad for the economy and is killing the climate that we all rely on. We've just had the climate-fuelled storm in Nelson, where we're all still cleaning up from it and from trashing the Denniston Plateau to causing asthma in children - coal poses an existential threat to the world we live in." Richard Tacon said the protest was costing a "f***ing fortune". "We have been trying to make things uncomfortable for them for sure... but I can tell you there are no firearms," Tacon said. They had tried to communicate with the protesters about what was being mined at Stockton and the risk the two activists in the coal bucket were taking, he said. "It's a high-quality coking coal. It's not going into boilers... it's going into steel," Tacon said. "We have had this discussion with them and they couldn't care less. This coal leads to lower emissions going into steel making. "I firmly believe the organisers of this have put two people into a place of great peril. It's only luck that they are still alive. These buckets can fall off. We have tried communicating this to them and they won't let us communicate with them. "If I put two people in that situation, I'd be prosecuted." The workers and the community were understandably frustrated by the protesters' actions, Tacon said. "Our people are really pissed off. It's costing them money." Police said officers were continuing to monitor the activity at Stockton Mine. "Police are also assessing allegations made by both parties, and will deal with the complaints appropriately based on their merit," West Coast response manager Senior Sergeant Brent Cook said. "Our role is to uphold the law, and we will take action where activity becomes unlawful. "A bird scarer has also been set off in the area, and enquiries have determined there is no threat to safety. We ask people leave the matter for police to deal with." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
UK set to start turning around asylum seekers
United Kingdom correspondent Lucy Thomson spoke to Lisa Owen about the UK being set to start turning asylum seekers around within a matter of days, as well as several countries meeting in Geneva in hopes of finally reaching an agreement on plastic.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Adjusting The Temperature: Climate Change And International Law
Before the clenching constipation of reluctant and cloddish policy makers, climate change advocates have found courts surprisingly amenable to their concerns. Bodies of environmental law in national courts and international tribunals are now burgeoning on the obligations of states to address ecological harms and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. As is often the case, it's the children at the vanguard, pointing scolding fingers at the adults in filing petitions and drawing attention to the dangers of tardiness. 2025 is proving to be something of a good year for climate change litigants and activists. On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as requested by Chile and Colombia, issued an advisory opinion addressing the scope and extent of obligations with respect to respecting, protecting and fulfilling substantive rights regarding the climate emergency; procedural rights relevant to the same; and clarifying obligations towards vulnerable groups (children, environment activists, women, indigenous groups and so forth). The advisory note is more onerous in not merely insisting that States observe a negative obligation – that is, to not violate rights directly – but that they also take positive steps through 'reinforced due diligence' to deal with foreseeable harms arising from climate change. This entailed identifying a right to a safe climate. The prohibition against causing irreversible damage to the climate and the environment was also deemed a jus cogens norm, compellable under international customary law similarly to the prohibition against genocide, slavery and torture. Striking a novel note, the IACtHR also noted that Nature and its components should be acknowledged as subjects of rights, a move in what has been described as 'ecological constitutionalism' in the Latin American context. On July 23, the International Court of Justice also handed down an advisory opinion that promises to be momentous in its aggravations and irritations – at least to certain lawmakers and industries. For those countries still reaping the material, gluttonous rewards of fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption, this is bound to be of some concern. Begun daringly in 2019 as an action by a group of Pacific Island students from the University of the South Pacific, with able support from Vanuatu, the court unanimously found that producing and consuming fossil fuels 'may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to that state'. Vanuatu's submission to the Court emphasised the grim consequences of not adequately addressing state obligations to address greenhouse gas emissions, including the shocks of internal displacement. 'The forced displacement from ancestral lands and ecosystems leads to grave cultural losses. It impairs territorial sovereignty and inhibits the affected peoples from making a free choice about their futures.' The decision is important in several respects. It opines that countries have a legal obligation to mitigate climate change and limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a goal outlined in the Paris Agreement. States are accordingly obligated to advance climate plans that reflect their 'highest possible ambition' in making 'adequate contribution' in limiting temperature rises to that level. The discretion of countries to arrive at elastic 'nationally determined contributions' was limited by the requirements of 'due diligence'. Any such determined contributions had to be compliant with the obligations under the Paris Agreement and international environmental law. The Court also reached the view that responsibility for breaches of climate change treaties 'and in relation to the loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.' Direction is also given on what a State wrong in not mitigating climate change might look like. A failure to take the appropriate steps to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, 'including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumptions, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies' could be 'an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' The wrong arises, not from the emissions as such, but from the failure to protect 'the climate change system from significant harm resulting from anthropogenic emissions of such gases.' The decision is crucial in considering historical responsibility and the thorny issue of reparations, the nature and quantum of the latter being dependent 'on the circumstances'. Both nation states and 'injured individuals' could seek reparations from historically heavy emitters, a point previously dealt with most unsatisfactorily via 'loss and damage' finance discussions through UN climate negotiations. The impediment that such finance be only provided voluntarily is potentially overcome by the legal obligation to repair harm. This is particularly important for countries with economies at risk to climate change disruption (tourism, fishing, agriculture) and the enormous costs arising from dealing with environmental disasters. The ICJ proved dismissive of arguments – often made by states with powerful fossil fuel lobbies – that attributing precise responsibility in the context of climate change was impossible. The Court observed 'that while climate change is caused by cumulative GHG emissions, it is scientifically possible to determine each State's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.' Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanum, is already filling his file with teasing blackmail for appropriate targets. Given its location in the Pacific, and prominence as a fossil fuel exporter, Australia is in his sights. 'Australia,' he told Australia's Radio National, 'is committing internationally wrongful acts as it is sponsoring and subsidising fossil fuel production and excessive emissions.' Canberra needed 'to align itself with the advisory opinion and cease this conduct that is contributing to emissions and start making reparations.' From being a slow field of speculative pursuit and vague pronouncements, climate change litigation has become a branch of international customary law. Current developments in this field even include a petition to the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights from May 2025 seeking to do something along the lines pursued by the ICJ and the IACtHR, with a focus on African states. This development will be unwelcome among the fossil fuel lobby groups that still threaten and bribe political representatives – and it's been a long time coming.
