World Court to issue landmark opinion on states' climate obligations
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 two questions the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges to consider 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?
'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.
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.
Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, holding hand-written placards with messages such as: "Climate justice now!" and "End fossil fuels". The protesters chanted: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!"
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 (RWEG.DE), opens new tab, 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, opens new tab to tackle climate change.
Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory.
The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions.
"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 judgements 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).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
21 minutes ago
- The Sun
Keir Starmer's plan will send back just 0.2 per cent of illegal migrants – it's pathetic – but I've got tips hapless PM
HOLD the front page! This is it! The Government has at last discovered a way to sort out our illegal migrant crisis. Sir Keir Starmer has struck a deal with the French. Yay. There will be a one-in, one-out system for illegal migrants arriving in rubber boats from France. So that's great, isn't it? For every migrant we send back to France, the French bung us one who has filled his forms in properly in return. So how on Earth is that going to reduce the numbers arriving here? By definition, it won't. And what's more, we're paying for it all. The UK taxpayer will foot the bill. And that's because the Prime Minister has the negotiating skills of half a grapefruit. Asked how many migrants this will see us sending back to France, the Government started looking at its shoes and humming a tune. Off the record they will hazard at a figure. It will be somewhere in the region of 50. Yes, 50. Just to give you the full picture, an estimated 25,000 have already arrived in the UK from France this year. So Sir Keir is proposing to send back just 0.2 per cent of the illegal migrants. Triffic, huh. And the deal only lasts for a year. It's not going to act as much of a deterrent, is it? Can you imagine the migrants being told: 'Well, OK, you can try to cross the Channel in that dinghy if you must. But I have to tell you, Asif, when you get to England you stand only a 94 per cent chance of being allowed to stay. Bear that in mind!' It would be laughable were it not so utterly, mind-blowingly, pathetic. Loophole in PM's swap plan means the more bogus an asylum seeker is, the less chance we have of kicking them out The truth is the Government's intention to 'smash the gangs!' hasn't worked and never was going to work. 'Smash' one gang and another will pop up to take its place. But it would be refreshing, at least, to hear Starmer and his pet Moomin, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, admit at last that the policy was bloody stupid and has failed just as everyone predicted. And so this is what we've got in its place. One-in, one-out. Brilliant. Starmer's hokey-cokey vision of controlling migration. The truth is that Yvette and Surkeir know full well that this is going to make not the slightest difference to the numbers arriving here from the Middle East and beyond. It is a silly and costly performative gesture, nothing more. The Government knows that the public is infuriated by the sheer numbers of asylum seekers arriving every day. It is a public sick of immigration, full stop. And the Government is losing masses of votes to Reform UK as a consequence. 4 Especially in the red wall seats of the north of England. But also in Kent and Essex. So it thought it had better do something. And this is what it came up with. Here's a tip, Starmer. First, stop using hotels to house all those who come. Put them in tents somewhere cold. Second, make it clear that EVERY asylum seeker who arrives here illegally will be automatically barred from ever getting the right to remain here. And then send those who do come to somewhere remote and inhospitable but under British dominion, so the lawyers can't carp. Such as Rockall, or St Helena, or South Georgia. But don't hold yer breath. With this lot in charge, it will never happen. KEIR'S NOT IN CHARGE WE are no longer being led, as a country, by Sir Keir Starmer. Now, you may think this is a good thing, by and large. Until you consider who is actually leading us. Yes, it's Richard 'Plank' Burgon and his lefty mates. The decisions which Starmer has been taking for the past three months are likely not those he would wish to make. They have been imposed upon him by the left-wingers on his backbenches. The debacle over the recognition of Palestine, for example. And the surrender over welfare benefits. Both obvious indicators of change of regime. And it has all happened because Sir Keir, with his majority of more than 170, has a spinal column the consistency of Butterscotch Angel Delight. What the hell were we thinking last summer? Why did we do it? Oh Lord, forgive us for our stupid mistakes. DANES WILL GO WILD FOR FEEDING TIME AT THE ZOO A ZOO in Denmark is asking for donations of 'unwanted pets'. This is so it can feed them to the big cats. They're a bit short of raw meat, apparently. The Danes will euthanise the pets first, which I think is a bit of a disappointment. I think feeding time could be a big draw. 'And now entering the lion enclosure is Fiver, a rabbit owned by six-year-old Inge Svenson. Let's see how long he lasts. The record is 8.5 seconds. Can Fiver beat that?' THE kinder, gentler, Left? I don't think so. Teacher Simon Pearson had more than 20 years' experience but was sacked after an internal investigation found his online posts could bring Preston College into disrepute after he said the jailing of Lucy Connolly was an example of two-tier justice. Connolly is the woman jailed for 31 months for saying horrible things about asylum seekers. Pearson made it clear he believed Connolly's comments were 'obviously wrong'. He just objected to the sentence – as many do. Sacked for holding an opinion which differed from that of the idiots who run the college. CAMDEN Council is considering banning meat and fish from its various canteens. In future, all meals and snacks will be entirely 'plant-based'. So what will happen is that the entire staff will soon be hobbling around with joint deficiencies, anaemia as well as stunning the locals with gusts of fabulously bad breath. But at least Camden is saving the polar bears and stopping the world from catching on fire. Never mind what the workers would prefer to eat – sod them! That's the left-wing way. REEVES IS SO TAXING THE worst Chancellor we have ever had is about to sting you for some more dosh. Rachel Reeves has been backed into a corner. She knows she needs to raise money. 4 But she has been stopped from cutting benefits by the idiots on the left. So now she's pondering a wealth tax. That means the flood of high-achieving people leaving the country will turn into a deluge. We'll all feel the pinch. You'll get stung for more if you try to sell a home, or buy one. Stung for more when paying for the nice things in life. She'll have you paying more for your children's education. Taxed if you save for a rainy day. Everything aspirational will be taxed. A YOUGOV poll out this week suggests that 45 per cent of us wish for immigration to reduce to zero. And for a substantial number of those who have come here recently to be sent back. Those are remarkable figures. After having been lied to about immigration for year after year, the public is at last waking up and letting its views be known.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
There are questions Beijing must answer about its Embassy plans
The saga of the new Chinese Embassy in London has reached its climax. Having bought the Royal Mint, a huge and historic site of more than five acres opposite the Tower of London, for £255m in 2018, Beijing is now developing it. Much of this building would be used for normal cultural and diplomatic purposes. But the plans include a vast basement with no obvious function. More concerningly, details of these plans have been redacted in Beijing's application. There are justifiable fears that the basement could become a high-tech centre for espionage, surveillance and monitoring of Chinese nationals. The basement might even include facilities where pro-democracy activists from Hong Kong could be interrogated. Lawyers for the Chinese are already exploring legal loopholes to extradite its opponents and rewards are offered to those who turn them in. The decision on granting planning permission now rests with the Housing Secretary. Angela Rayner is, of course, also the Deputy Prime Minister. As such she will be more concerned about global than local issues. Britain's economic dependence on China means that it seems most unlikely that Ms Rayner will refuse planning permission, apart from minor modifications. But it is welcome that she has at least asked for an explanation as to why the plans have been redacted. This is, however, an issue that transcends normal diplomatic relations. We cannot allow the largest embassy in Europe to be erected in such a strategic location in London without proper parliamentary and press scrutiny. Ms Rayner must elicit more information from the Chinese about what would go on inside their proposed basement. Until the Beijing authorities are more forthcoming about their intentions, the public is entitled to presume that they are sinister.
Economist
33 minutes ago
- Economist
A glimpse of Gaza's miserable future
FOR two weeks, the world has claimed it is working to end the widespread hunger in Gaza. The UN is pleading with Israel to allow more lorries of aid into the territory. Arab and Western states are airdropping food. On August 5th Donald Trump said America would take a larger role in distributing aid, though he was vague about the details. 'I know Israel is going to help us with that in terms of distribution, and also money,' he said. Yet on the ground, Gazans say little has changed. There is not enough food entering Gaza, nor is there law and order to allow its distribution. Airdrops are hard to reach. Convoys are looted soon after they cross the border. Finding food often requires making a risky trip to an aid centre, where hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in recent months, or paying exorbitant sums on the black market. This is a calamity in its own right, one that will have long-term consequences for many Gazans, particularly children. But it is also a glimpse of Gaza's future. Even after the war ends, it will remain at the mercy of others for years to come. Wedged between Israel and Egypt, the tiny territory was never self-sufficient. Its neighbours imposed an embargo after Hamas, a militant group, took power in 2007. The economy withered. Half of the workforce in the strip was unemployed and more than 60% of the population relied on some form of foreign aid to survive. The UN doled out cash assistance, ran a network of clinics that offered 3.5m consultations a year and operated schools that educated some 300,000 children. Still, Gaza could meet at least some basic needs by itself. Two-fifths of its territory was farmland that supplied enough dairy, poultry, eggs and fruits and vegetables to meet most local demand. Small factories produced everything from packaged food to furniture. The Hamas-run government was inept, but it provided law and order. After nearly two years of war, almost none of that remains. The UN's World Food Programme (WFP) says that Gaza's 2m people need 62,000 tonnes of food a month. That is a bare-bones calculation: it would provide enough staple foods but no meat, fruits and vegetables or other perishables. By its own tally, Israel has allowed far less in. It imposed a total siege on the territory from March 2nd until May 19th, with no food permitted to enter. Then Israel allowed the UN to resume limited aid deliveries to northern Gaza. It also helped establish the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a shadowy outfit that distributes food at four points in southern and central Gaza. In more than two months of operation, it has handed out less than 0.7 meals per Gazan per day—and that assumes each box of aid, stocked with a hotch-potch of dried and canned goods, really provides as many meals as the GHF claims it does. All told, Israel permitted 98,674 tonnes of food aid to cross the border in the five months through July, an average of 19,734 tonnes a month—just 32% of what the WFP says is necessary. Although the volume of aid has increased in recent days, it is still insufficient. 'We're trying to get 80 to 100 trucks in, every single day,' says Valerie Guarnieri of the WFP. 'It's not a high bar, but a realistic bar of what we can achieve.' On August 4th, though, Israel allowed only 41 of the agency's lorries to enter a staging area on the Gaza border, and it let drivers collect just 29 of them. Getting into Gaza is only the first challenge. Distribution is a nightmare. Since May 19th the UN has collected 2,604 lorryloads of aid from Gaza's borders. Just 300 reached their intended destination. The rest were intercepted en route, either by desperate civilians or by armed men. Aid workers are nonchalant about civilians raiding aid lorries, which they euphemistically call 'self-distribution': they reckon the food still reaches people who need it. 'There's a real crescendo of desperation,' says Ms Guarnieri. 'People have no confidence food is going to come the next day.' But the roaring black market suggests that much of it is stolen. Gaza's chamber of commerce publishes a regular survey of food prices (see chart). A 25kg sack of flour, which cost 35 shekels ($10) before the war, went for 625 shekels on August 5th. A kilo of tomatoes fetched 100 shekels, 50 times its pre-war value. Such prices are far beyond the reach of most Gazans. Those with a bit of money often haggle for tiny quantities: a shopper might bring home a single potato for his family, for example. Israel's ostensible goal in throttling the supply of aid was to prevent Hamas from pilfering any of it. Earlier this month the group released a propaganda video of Evyatar David, an Israeli hostage still held in Gaza. He was emaciated, and spent much of the video recounting how little he had to eat: a few lentils or beans one day, nothing the next. At one point a militant handed Mr David a can of beans from behind the camera. Many viewers noted that the captor's hand looked rather chubby. As much of Gaza starves, Hamas, it seems, is still managing to feed its fighters. The consequences of Israel's policy instead fall hardest on children—sometimes even before birth. 'One in three pregnancies are now high-risk. One in five babies that we've seen are born premature or underweight,' says Leila Baker of the UN's family-planning agency. Compare that with before the war, when 8% of Gazan babies were born underweight (at less than 2.5kg). There were 222 stillbirths between January and June, a ten-fold increase from levels seen before the war. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN-backed outfit that tracks hunger, said last month that 20,000 children were hospitalised for acute malnutrition between April and mid-July. Even before they reach that point, their immune systems crumble. Moderately malnourished children catch infections far more easily than well-fed ones, and become more seriously ill when they do, rapidly losing body weight. The body takes a 'big hit' when food intake falls to just 70-80% of normal, says Marko Kerac, a paediatrician at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who has treated children in famine-stricken places. Most children in Gaza are eating a lot less than that. In July the World Health Organisation reported an outbreak of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare autoimmune disease that may have links to hunger. Gaza's health ministry says cases are multiplying, including among children. Give us our daily bread Nor is calorie intake the only concern. Although flour and salt in Gaza are fortified with some vitamins and minerals, such as iodine, they are consumed in limited amounts—especially now, since many bakeries have been closed for months, owing to a lack of flour and fuel. In February, during the ceasefire, Israel allowed 15,000 tonnes of fruits and vegetables and 11,000 tonnes of meat and fish into Gaza. Since March it has allowed just 136 tonnes of meat. All of this means there is widespread deficiency of essential nutrients that help children's brains develop. Every child in Gaza, in other words, will remain at lifelong risk of poor health because of today's malnutrition. There is consistent evidence for this from studies of populations that have lived through famine: during the second world war, the 1960s famine in China and, more recently, places like Ethiopia. Children who have suffered acute malnourishment have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases as adults. They are also at risk of worse cognitive development. A flood of aid cannot undo the damage, but it can prevent it from getting worse. It will have to be sustained. The devastation wrought by Israel's war has left Gazans with no alternative but to rely on aid. In February the UN estimated that the war had caused $30bn in physical damage and $19bn in economic disruption, including lost labour, forgone income and increased costs. Reconstruction would require $53bn. At this point, that is little more than a guess. The real cost is impossible to calculate. But it will be enormous. The first task will be simply clearing the rubble. A UN assessment in April, based on satellite imagery, estimated that there were 53m tonnes of rubble strewn across Gaza—30 times as much debris as was removed from Manhattan after the September 11th attacks. Clearing it could be the work of decades. The seven-week war between Israel and Hamas in 2014, the longest and deadliest before the current one, produced 2.5m tonnes of debris. It took two years to remove. Rebuilding a productive economy will be no less difficult. Take agriculture. The UN's agriculture agency says that 80% of Gaza's farmland and 84% of its greenhouses have been damaged in the war. Livestock have been all but wiped out. A satellite assessment last summer found that 68% of Gaza's roads had been damaged (that figure is no doubt higher today). The two main north-south roads—one along the coast, the other farther inland—are both impassable in places. Even if farmers can start planting crops for small harvests after the war, it will be hard to bring their produce to market. The picture is equally bleak in other sectors: schools, hospitals and factories have all been largely reduced to rubble. The Geneva Conventions are clear that civilians have the right to flee a war zone. Exercising that right in Gaza is fraught: Palestinians have a well-grounded fear that Israel will never allow them to return. Powerful members of Binyamin Netanyahu's government do not hide their desire to ethnically cleanse the territory and rebuild the Jewish settlements dismantled in 2005. Still, the dire conditions have led some people to think the unthinkable: a survey conducted in May by a leading Palestinian pollster found that 43% of Gazans are willing to emigrate at the end of the war. Mr Netanyahu may not follow through on his talk of reoccupying Gaza, which he hinted at in media leaks earlier this month. His far-right allies may not fulfil their dream of rebuilding the Jewish settlements dismantled in 2005. In a sense, though, the ideologues in his cabinet have already achieved their goal. Israel's conduct of the war has left Gazans with a grim choice: leave the territory, or remain in a place rendered all but uninhabitable. ■
