In photos: Paris's Bastille Day fireworks and pyrotecnics show
A major classical music concert preceded the show on the Champ-de-Mars, where nearly 60,000 people were expected. Edith Piaf's "Hymne à l'amour" also resonated through the night, performed by cellist Gautier Capuçon and pianist Jérôme Ducros, as a tribute to Céline Dion's performance perched atop the Eiffel Tower during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympic Games.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
18 hours ago
- Euronews
Five things to know about the ICJ's historic climate change ruling
On Wednesday, the UN's highest court delivered a historic opinion on climate change, outlining states' responsibilities under international law. It was the largest case ever seen by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with more than 150 submissions from states, international organisations, and civil society groups. Over 100 states and international organisations took part in hearings last December. The ICJ is the world's highest court, but its 133-page advisory opinion is not legally binding. Although it doesn't establish new international laws, it clarifies existing ones and is likely to be cited in future climate litigation and UN negotiations like COP30 in Brazil later this year. Experts believe it could have a plethora of consequences for global climate action. But what do the key parts of the ICJ's advisory opinion actually mean? A healthy environment is a human right The ICJ affirmed that a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right, just like access to water, food and housing. In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution acknowledging this right. The ICJ confirmed this again on Wednesday, saying that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is foundational for the effective enjoyment of all human rights. It means that, as Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change. Preventing climate harm is bigger than the Paris Agreement Big emitters were accused of trying to hide behind the Paris Agreement during the hearings for the case. In December, they argued that the international climate agreement was already a sufficient framework that outlined states' climate responsibilities. But the court confirmed that climate change threatens human rights and involves multiple branches of international law, from international human rights law to environmental law and the UN Charter, not just the Paris Agreement. This means any duty to prevent harm to the environment and protect the climate applies to all states, whether or not they are parties to specific UN climate agreements. The ICJ also emphasised the need for ambition and accountability, not merely having a plan. Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs are national climate plans that represent each country's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. They are a core part of the Paris Agreement. The content of each country's NDC is as relevant to whether they are complying with their legal obligations as simply submitting one. Essentially, it means any plan must be ambitious and in line with climate science, reflecting a state's 'highest possible ambition', and must become 'more demanding over time'. States that fail to act on climate change risk are breaking the law 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions … may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,' Court president Iwasawa Yuji said. He specifically mentioned fossil fuel production and consumption, as well as the provision of subsidies. This means countries that fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change could be in violation of international law. If governments and parliaments fail to curb the production and consumption of fossil fuels, approve fossil fuel projects and roll out public money for fossil fuels, they could also be in breach of international law. The court also confirmed that countries are bound by international law to regulate the climate impact of businesses and companies within their jurisdiction, including fossil fuel firms. States harmed by climate change have a right to seek reparations The court affirmed that legal consequences for climate harm include restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition. That means states responsible for unlawful emissions could be required to stop harmful actions, restore damaged infrastructure or ecosystems - or provide financial compensation for the losses suffered. The ruling paves the way for vulnerable nations to seek reparations from historical emitters for the harm they have endured from climate impacts like extreme weather. In other words, they could sue high-emitting nations, including for past emissions. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' explains Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. 'In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion not only clarifies existing rules, it creates legal momentum. It reshapes what is now considered legally possible, actionable, and ultimately enforceable.' The ICJ's opinion could affect current climate cases and future agreements The ICJ's opinion opens the door for other legal actions, from states returning to the ICJ to hold each other accountable to domestic lawsuits. 'This newfound clarity will equip judges with definitive guidance that will likely shape climate cases for decades to come,' says ClientEarth lawyer Lea Main-Klingst. 'And outside the courtroom, this result is a powerful advocacy tool. Each and every one of us can use this decision to demand our governments and parliaments take more ambitious action on climate change to comply with both the Paris Agreement and other applicable international laws.' That includes in the lead-up to and during upcoming negotiations at COP30, where the advisory opinion from the ICJ could be used as leverage.
LeMonde
2 days ago
- LeMonde
EU-China trade summit will begin amid discord
Tradition would have dictated that European Union officials host the Chinese leadership for the summit held to mark 50 years of diplomatic relations between the powers, especially as the previous EU-China summit, held in 2023, took place in Beijing. However, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and her European Council counterpart, Antonio Costa, agreed to travel to China once again. That was the condition for meeting with President Xi Jinping on Thursday, July 24, as the Chinese leader had no intention of coming to Europe. Yet the gesture was not enough to win Beijing over, as points of friction have continued to crop up between the two parties. Not only was the summit, which had originally been planned as a 48-hour event, cut down to a single day in the Chinese capital city, but it is also unlikely to conclude with any joint statements being adopted, except, perhaps, one on climate change. Ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, which will take place in Belem, Brazil, from November 10-21, both parties have an interest in showing a united front on climate issues, at a time when the United States is gearing up to officially exit the Paris Agreement for a second time.
LeMonde
3 days ago
- LeMonde
ICJ opinion says states are legally obligated to tackle climate change
The world's highest court declared, on Wednesday, July 23, that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and that failing to do so was a "wrongful act" that could open the door to reparations. The decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN court in the Hague that adjudicates disputes between nations, was closely watched by legal experts, who said the judges' opinion could mark a turning point for environmental justice and climate litigation around the world. ICJ advisory opinions are not binding but carry considerable moral and legal weight, and Wednesday's decision was seen as the most consequential in a recent string of landmark climate rulings. In handing down the decision, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat" and states breaching their obligations to address the crisis were committing "an internationally wrongful act." "The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include (...) full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction," the court said. This would be on a case-by-case basis where a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had been shown "between the wrongful act and the injury," it added. It also said that the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effects of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life." Courts as key battlegrounds for climate action The United Nations had tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions "for present and future generations"? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. As a result, courts have become key battlegrounds for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. Ahead of the ICJ's decision, experts said the advisory opinion could have ripple effects across national courts, legal processes, and public debate. More than 100 nations and groups gave submissions at a mammoth hearing in December in the Great Hall of Justice in the Hague. Many hailed from distant Pacific Island nations, and delivered impassioned appeals in the sober arena dressed in colourful traditional attire. Experts said it would take time to go over the full advisory opinion, which is the biggest case ever handled by the ICJ. To reach its decision, ICJ judges pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world. Wealthy states vs. smaller ones The debate pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states, which are most at the mercy of a warming planet. Big polluters, including the United States and India, argued that legal provisions under the UNFCCC were sufficient, and that a re-examination of state responsibility in relation to climate action was not necessary. New Yet the smaller states refuted this, saying the UN framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader. These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters, a highly sensitive issue in global climate negotiations. They also demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. 'No more delay' Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like "No more delay, climate justice today." The journey to the world's highest court was six years in the making, spearheaded by students from the climate-imperilled Pacific region, and championed by the tiny island nation of Vanuatu. Ahead of the ruling, Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanu, said the advisory opinion could be a "game-changer." "It's a landmark milestone for climate action," said Regenvanu on the steps outside the court in the Hague. "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time." "We've been going through this for 30 years (...) It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have," he added, speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
