UN top court: Failure to act against climate change could violate international law
Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adopted an advisory opinion on the subject that emphasized the 'duty' of states 'to use all means at their disposal' to minimize harm to the environment.
The opinion tasked governments with cooperating on this mission, noting that 'a breach by a state of any obligations' identified in the advisory 'constitutes an internationally wrongful act.'
Potential consequences of such violations could include 'full reparation to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' the document stated.
In remarks prior to reading out the opinion, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stressed that the climate questions raised in the proceedings 'represent more than a legal problem.'
'They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperil all forms of life and the very health of our planet,' Iwasawa said.
The judges delivered their non-binding opinion with unanimous support, marking just the fifth time the body has done so in its 80-year history, according to the UN.
The advisory ruling followed years of lobbying from island nations, arguing that they were at the mercy of climate-induced sea-level rise. The UN General Assembly decided to ask the ICJ for its advisory opinion in 2023, in a case led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu.
'International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,' Iwasawa said on Wednesday.
'A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge,' he added.
While the advisory opinion emphasizes the responsibility of nations to act with due diligence to combat climate change, it also recognizes that those duties are 'differentiated' among countries.
When taken as a whole, however, these efforts should collectively contribute to limiting global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius, as agreed upon in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, per the opinion.
In a press conference following the ICJ's delivery, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate change minister, expressed satisfaction not only with the opinion, but also with the fact that it was unanimous.
'It really points to the critical nature of this issue, and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency,' Regenvanu said.
Describing the ruling as 'a landmark moment,' the minister added that 'the evidence is clear, and we can see it everywhere, that climate change is affecting everybody, all over the world.'
Ilan Kiloe of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat — a regional government agency in Vanuatu — added that area residents have already 'suffered forced relocation' and have 'lost much of what defines us as Pacific Islanders.'
'And climate change has only gotten started,' Kiloe said.
Vishal Prasad, campaign director for Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, described the opinion as 'a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear.'
'This ruling is also a testament to the resolve of people everywhere, those at the front lines who chose not to allow the decisions of a minority of countries to dictate the future of the global majority,' he said.
The ICJ opinion, Prashad added, provides countries with a foundation to build a more sustainable and equitable future.
As far as wrongful acts and reparations are concerned, attorney Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh said she believes that 'the court has made it crystal clear' that injured states could now raise 'a whole range of defenses' against polluters.
'It really strengthens the legal basis for such claims going forward,' added Wewerinke-Singh, an international lawyer at Blue Ocean Law who served as legal counsel for Vanuatu's case.
She expressed hope that many polluting states would now prefer to voluntarily pay off reparations, rather than engaging in litigation.
Responding to questions about the United States, a major polluter that does not recognize the ICJ's legal authority, Wewerinke-Singh said that as a U.N. member, the U.S. does, however, accept the court's advisory function.
Since the U.N. General Assembly, including the U.S., requested the ICJ's opinion, the U.S. 'is also supposed to follow this advice' as long as it remains part of the U.N., she explained.
In the aftermath of the ruling, Regenvanu — Vanuatu's climate change minister — said that next steps will involve taking the ICJ ruling back to the General Assembly and pursuing a resolution to support its implementation.
'We hope to set a new status quo and provide the structural changes needed to give our current and future generations hope for a healthy planet and a sustainable future,' Regenvanu said.
'Let this be the moment when we see a change and the world turns its face towards climate justice, and this legal clarity provides us with the moral courage to take this forward,' the minister added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
13 minutes 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.
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Dozens killed seeking aid in Gaza as Israel weighs further military action
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip — At least 38 Palestinians were killed overnight and into Wednesday in the Gaza Strip while seeking aid from United Nations convoys and sites run by an Israeli-backed American contractor, according to local health officials. The Israeli military said it had fired warning shots when crowds approached its forces. Another 25 people, including several women and children, were killed in Israeli airstrikes, according to local hospitals in Gaza. The military said it only targets Hamas militants. The latest deaths came as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to announce further military action — and possibly plans for Israel to fully reoccupy Gaza. Experts say Israel's ongoing military offensive and blockade are already pushing the territory of some 2 million Palestinians into famine. A new U.N. report said only 1.5% of Gaza's cropland is accessible and undamaged. Another escalation of the nearly 22-month war could put the lives of countless Palestinians and around 20 living Israeli hostages at risk, and would draw fierce opposition both internationally and within Israel. Netanyahu's far-right coalition allies have long called for the war to be expanded, and for Israel to eventually take over Gaza, relocate much of its population and rebuild Jewish settlements there. President Trump, asked by a reporter Tuesday whether he supported the reoccupation of Gaza, said he wasn't aware of the 'suggestion' but that 'it's going to be pretty much up to Israel.' Of the 38 Palestinians killed while seeking aid, at least 28 died in the Morag Corridor, an Israeli military zone in southern Gaza where U.N. convoys have been repeatedly overwhelmed by looters and desperate crowds in recent days, and where witnesses say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire. The Israeli military said troops fired warning shots as Palestinians advanced toward them, and that it was not aware of any casualties. Nasser Hospital, which received the bodies, said another four people were killed in the Teina area, on a route leading to a site in southern Gaza run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American contractor. The Al-Awda Hospital said it received the bodies of six people killed near a GHF site in central Gaza. GHF said there were no violent incidents at or near its sites. Two of the Israeli airstrikes hit Gaza City, in the north of the territory, killing 13 people there, including six children and five women, according to the Al-Ahli Hospital, which received the bodies. The Israeli military says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas because its militants are entrenched in heavily populated areas. Israel facilitated the establishment of four GHF sites in May after blocking the entry of all food, medicine and other goods for 2 1/2 months. Israeli and U.S. officials said a new system was needed to prevent Hamas from siphoning off humanitarian aid. The United Nations, which has delivered aid to hundreds of distribution points across Gaza throughout the war when conditions allow, has rejected the new system, saying it forces Palestinians to travel long distances and risk their lives for food, and that it allows Israel to control who gets aid, potentially using it to advance plans for further mass displacement. The U.N. human rights office said last week that some 1,400 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May, mostly near GHF sites but also along U.N. convoy routes where trucks have been overwhelmed by crowds. It says nearly all were killed by Israeli fire. This week, a group of U.N. special rapporteurs and independent human rights experts called for the GHF to be disbanded, saying it is 'an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law.' The experts work with the U.N. but do not represent the world body. The GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots when crowds threatened its forces, and GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray and fired into the air on some occasions to prevent deadly crowding at its sites. Israel's air and ground war has destroyed nearly all of Gaza's food production capabilities, leaving its people reliant on international aid. A new report by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.N. satellite center found that just 8.6% of Gaza's cropland is still accessible following sweeping Israeli evacuation orders in recent months. Just 1.5% is accessible and undamaged, it said. The military offensive and a breakdown in security have made it nearly impossible for anyone to safely deliver aid, and aid groups say recent Israeli measures to facilitate more assistance are far from sufficient. Hospitals recorded four more malnutrition-related deaths over the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 193 people, including 96 children, since the war began in October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Jordan said Israeli settlers blocked roads and hurled stones at a convoy of four trucks carrying aid bound for Gaza after they drove across the border into the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israeli far-right activists have repeatedly sought to halt aid from entering Gaza. Jordanian government spokesperson Mohammed al-Momani condemned the attack, which he said had shattered the windshields of the trucks, according to the Jordanian state-run Petra News Agency. The Israeli military said security forces went to the scene to disperse the gathering and accompanied the trucks to their destination. Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack and abducted another 251. Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals. Of the 50 still held in Gaza, around 20 are believed to be alive. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children. It is part of the now largely defunct Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. The U.N. and independent experts consider it the most reliable source for the number of war casualties. Shurafa, Khaled and Melzer write for the Associated Press. Khaled reported from Cairo and Melzer from Tel Aviv. Israel. Associated Press writers Stefanie Dazio in Berlin and Sally Abou AlJoud in Beirut contributed to this report.
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Here's How Trump Says He'll Punish Russia Over Ceasefire Deadline
President Donald Trump has given Russia until Friday to end the war in Ukraine or face 'very severe tariffs' and a new wave of sanctions designed to cripple its oil trade and financial lifelines. As that deadline approaches, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Wednesday for about three hours as part of a last-ditch diplomatic effort to reach a ceasefire. No details of an outcome were announced, though a Russian official described the meeting as 'successful' and added that "dialogue will prevail.' It remains unclear whether Putin will agree to Trump's ultimatum, or whether the Kremlin views the threat of sanctions as credible enough to force a meaningful shift in its military campaign. Putin may offer a partial ceasefire that involves a halt to the missile and drone attacks Russia has ramped up against Ukrainian cities in recent months—hitting apartments, maternity hospitals, civilian transportation, and a playground. Trump's Friday deadline is set to come a week after he sent two U.S. nuclear submarines closer to Russia in response to threatening comments made on social media by Russia's former president. More than 6,700 Ukrainian civilians have been killed in the first half of this year, according to the United Nations. A partial ceasefire may stop the deadly attacks, but it would not prevent Russia from advancing in eastern Ukraine, where it has gained around 900 square miles since December, according to data from the Institute for the Study of War think tank. 'I'm disappointed in President Putin. Very disappointed in him,' Trump said on July 28 over the lack of progress toward a ceasefire, as he announced he was shortening his deadline from 50 days for Russia to end the war amid the escalating attacks. Trump has described Russia's attacks on Ukraine as 'disgusting' and 'a disgrace.' Here's how the U.S. plans to punish Russia if it does not agree to a ceasefire by Friday. Sanctions on Russia's shadow fleet Trump's proposed sanctions package would strike at the core of Russia's war financing: its global oil exports. Chief among the measures under consideration is a crackdown on Russia's so-called 'shadow fleet'—a network of hundreds of aging oil tankers that Moscow has used to bypass the G7's $60-per-barrel price cap and export Russian crude to countries such as India and China. These ships operate under obscure ownership structures and are often registered in jurisdictions with minimal oversight, making them difficult to trace or regulate. The Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration is preparing to blacklist dozens of additional tankers in the coming days, following the precedent set by the Biden Administration, which sanctioned 213 tankers before leaving office. Trump has until now resisted expanding the list in hopes of securing a negotiated settlement. But with Putin refusing to halt attacks on Ukrainian cities, officials say that patience has run out. Data suggests the tactic can be effective. According to Kpler, a cargo analytics platform, tankers that were sanctioned saw their shipping volume drop from 48 million barrels per month to just 13 million within six months—a 73% decline, the Financial Times reported. Analysts expect a significant share of Russia's remaining oil exports could be disrupted if the Trump Administration broadens the crackdown and coordinates with the EU, which sanctioned over 100 ships last month. Penalties for Russia's energy trading partners Trump has threatened to go after the countries that continue to buy Russian oil, part of an effort to reduce Russia's ability to fund its war effort as oil exports account for a significant portion of Russia's economy. He took the first step on Wednesday by signing an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India because it continues to buy oil from Russia. The additional tariff on India is set to take effect in 21 days, bringing the total duties imposed on Indian products up to 50%. 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits,' Trump said in a Truth Social post. 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.' China is the largest importer of Russian oil, with $62.5 billion worth of purchases last year, followed by India at $52.7 billion. Other countries that buy Russian oil include Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Azerbaijan, Netherlands, Uzbekistan, Brazil, and Malaysia, though at significantly lower levels than China and India. Overall, China is the largest importer of Russian goods, with purchases last year totalling $128.3 billion, followed by India ($65.7 billion), Turkey ($44.0 billion), Belarus ($34.1 billion), Kazakhstan ($17.0 billion) and Brazil ($11.6 billion). The White House contends that such trade has become critical to sustaining Russia's war economy, and hasn't ruled out extending economic penalties to China, though any move targeting Chinese imports would likely be more complex and risk sparking retaliation. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate, co-sponsored by Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, would impose tariffs of up to 500% on countries that continue to import Russian energy. Trump has publicly said he is 'very strongly' considering endorsing the bill, which has gained momentum on Capitol Hill. India said in a statement Wednesday that it is 'extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest.' 'We have already made clear our position on these issues, including the fact that our imports are based on market factors and done with the overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India,' an official spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs said.
