Top UN court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming, World News
In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change.
"States must co-operate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.
The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met".
"I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out.
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, said: "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies.
"This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond." Human right to clean environment
Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second biggest current emitter behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.
"As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Reuters in response to the opinion.
With scepticism over climate change spreading in the US and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion.
"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.
Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. Political and legal weight
The court's opinion is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.
"This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace.
Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued.
"These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said. Two questions
Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: 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?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 degrees Celsius 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.
[[nid:719823]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
UN plastic treaty talks: Countries embark on 10-day talks in Geneva to hammer out global agreement
Negotiators are making another push to finally secure a binding global treaty to tackle plastic pollution, as 10 days of talks get underway at the United Nations in Geneva. Ross Cullen reports from Paris.
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Unresolved property issues haunt stalled Cyprus peace process
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox NICOSIA - Decades-old property disputes stemming from Cyprus's unresolved division are stirring tensions on the island, threatening to derail fragile progress in United Nations-led reconciliation attempts. Recent detentions on both sides over disputed property claims have exposed the enduring grievances of tens of thousands of internally displaced people. "I'm very concerned. I fear the property issue will cause major problems in the coming months," outgoing U.N. envoy Colin Stewart said in an interview with Turkish Cypriot daily Yeni Duzen. Five Greek Cypriots have been in Turkish Cypriot custody since July 19 and face charges of trespass for visiting Trikomo, a predominantly Greek Cypriot area before the island was split by a Turkish invasion in 1974, triggered by a brief Greek-inspired coup. Now known by the Turkish name Iskele, it has attracted considerable development in recent years. A property developer active in the region holding joint Israeli and Turkish citizenship has been in custody for more than a year in Cyprus's south on accusations of cashing in on Greek Cypriot properties. In May, a court jailed two people from Hungary for brokering sales of Greek Cypriot-owned properties in the north. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides called the arrest of the Greek Cypriots an "act of piracy". In response, Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar - who had previously accused Greek Cypriots of weaponising the property issue by prosecuting the developer - criticised Christodoulides for showing disrespect to Turkish Cypriots and the judicial process. Both are key players in a U.N.-backed process to foster trust-building between Cyprus's Greek and Turkish communities, but progress has been slow. The cases highlight the complexity and sensitivity over territory on the island, where the seeds of partition were sown after independence from Britain in the early sixties, when a power-sharing administration fell apart. Most people who fled communal conflict could never return, and in many cases in the north properties were re-distributed. "This underlines the need for a settlement, because the only way to address the property issue is to solve the Cyprus problem," a diplomatic source told Reuters. REUTERS
Business Times
5 hours ago
- Business Times
The crypto crises are coming
HAVING adopted one major piece of digital-currency legislation (the Genius Act) and with more pending (the Clarity Act has passed the House of Representatives), the United States is poised to become a major hub for cryptocurrency-related activities, or even – taking President Donald Trump literally – the 'crypto capital of the world'. But those who support the new legislation should be careful what they wish for. Unfortunately, the crypto industry has acquired so much political power – primarily through political donations – that the Genius Act and the Clarity Act have been designed to prevent reasonable regulation. The result will most likely be a boom-bust cycle of epic proportions. Historically, US financial markets' major advantage compared to other countries has been relatively greater transparency, which enables investors to gain a deeper understanding of risks and make better-informed decisions. The US also has strict rules against conflicts of interest, requirements to treat investors fairly (including by protecting their assets in proper custody arrangements), and limits on how much risk many financial firms can take. Sensible laws This framework is not an accident or something that emerged purely through market competition. Rather, it is the result of sensible laws and regulations that were created during the 1930s (after a major disaster) and that have evolved in a reasonable fashion since then. These rules are the major reason why it is so easy in the US to do business, to bring new ideas to market, and to raise capital to support innovation of all kinds. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Any individual entrepreneur or even a potential new industry (such as crypto) may baulk at these rules, claiming that they are different from anything the world has ever seen. But financial innovation involves risks for the entire financial system, not just for individual investors. The point of regulation is to protect the whole. Many major economies – including the US – learned this the hard way. Over the past 200 years, they have experienced severe financial disruptions and even systemic meltdowns. One such collapse was a major contributor to the Great Depression, which began with a stock market crash in 1929 and spilled over to bring down many banks (and other investments), destroying millions of Americans' wealth and dreams. Avoiding a repeat of that experience has long been an important policy goal. But the Genius Act does not advance this goal. The law creates a framework for stablecoins, an important emerging digital asset, issued by US and foreign firms, that purports to maintain a stable value against a particular currency or commodity, with the US dollar being the most popular anchor. Stablecoins are useful to investors active in cryptocurrency trading, enabling them to move into and out of particular crypto assets without having to navigate the traditional (non-crypto) financial system. We should expect significant demand, including from non-financial firms, such as Walmart and Amazon, seeking to bypass established payment systems. The business model of stablecoin issuers is to capture the spread between what they pay on their currencies (which is zero interest under this legislation) and what they can receive when they invest their reserves, just like a bank. Source of vulnerability All the incentives for stablecoin issuers are to invest at least some of their reserves in riskier assets to get higher returns. This will be a major source of vulnerability, particularly when issuers are licensed by permissive state authorities. Indeed, from a systemic perspective, the Genius Act's main shortcoming is its failure to deal effectively with the inherent risk of stablecoin runs, because it prevents regulators from prescribing strong capital, liquidity and other safeguards. And when any stablecoin issuer – domestic or foreign – gets into trouble, who will step in, and with what authority, to prevent the problems from spreading to the real economy, like in the 1930s? Simply applying the bankruptcy code to failed stablecoin issuers will inevitably impose severe costs on investors, including prolonged delays in receiving what's left of their money. It will almost certainly exacerbate runs on other stablecoin issuers. Moreover, if the Genius Act's goals include preserving the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and boosting demand for Treasuries (as stated by its advocates), why does Section 15 of the law allow foreign issuers to invest their reserves in assets such as their own country's (risky) government debt, even if that debt is not denominated in dollars? We should expect foreign regulators to condone or even favor such arrangements. But then we will have 'stablecoins' with fixed dollar obligations, backed in significant part by non-dollar assets – and one can easily imagine what a big appreciation in the value of the dollar will do to such arrangements (spoiler alert: immediate liquidity problems, insolvency fears and destabilising runs). There is a lot more trouble to come, particularly if any version of the Clarity Act passes the Senate. This legislation would allow conflicts of interest and self-dealing on a scale not allowed since the 1920s. There are also major national security concerns, to the extent that both the Genius Act and the Clarity Act allow or even facilitate the continued use of stablecoins (and crypto more broadly) in illicit financial transactions. The US may well become the crypto capital of the world and, under its emerging legislative framework, a few rich people will surely get richer. But in its eagerness to do the crypto industry's bidding, the Congress has exposed Americans and the world to the real possibility of the return of financial panic and severe economic damage, implying massive job losses and wealth destruction. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a 2024 Nobel laureate in economics and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and the co-author (with Daron Acemoglu) of Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity (PublicAffairs, 2023).
