UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change
The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law.
While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK.
Despite being advisory, there are fears it could be enshrined in law by Labour, who, under the guidance of Attorney General Lord Hermer, have an 'ideological obsession' with international law, the Tories warned on Wednesday night.
Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.'
Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change.
Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.'
Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said.
And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'.
It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December.
In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result.
Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.'
The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities.
But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation.
However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution.
Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.'
Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments.
'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the other Afghan scandal: countries are forcing refugees back to Taliban rule
The British public discovered only very belatedly that an enormous accidental data breach by an official three years ago put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of torture and death. Some of them had worked with British forces in Afghanistan. The result was that thousands were secretly relocated to the UK. A superinjunction covered up the story for almost two years. But the shocking security lapse is far from the only example of Afghans being failed since Kabul fell to the Taliban in 2021. Many more are now at risk because the countries to which they fled are pushing them out. The mirage of a more moderate Taliban was soon shattered by their imposition of gender apartheid and the brutality faced by minorities. Three-quarters of the population struggle to meet their daily needs. Women are particularly vulnerable. Humanitarian support is being slashed. A drought and now the loss of overseas remittances are deepening the crisis. Yet almost 2 million Afghan refugees and migrants in neighbouring countries have returned or been forced to return home this year alone – thousands of them unaccompanied children, according to UN experts. More than 1.5 million Afghans have returned from Iran in 2025, with Iran accelerating expulsions after the war with Israel, which fed suspicion towards migrants. Pakistan began deporting unregistered Afghans in late 2023, after attacks by militants in border areas, but has widened its campaign to those who hold documents. More than two-thirds have never lived in Afghanistan, according to the International Crisis Group; their families fled conflict decades ago. In some cases, security forces are forcibly repatriating Afghans. In others, threats, harassment or intimidation have chased them out. The Trump administration has announced the removal of temporary protected status from almost 12,000 Afghans in the US, though an appeals court has for now blocked it from doing so. The US said that conditions in Afghanistan no longer merited the status. Tajikistan has also ordered Afghans to leave. UN experts have warned that former officials, including judges and lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists and other critics of the Taliban, along with religious and ethnic minorities, are at particular risk if they are returned. Women and girls are being deported to a country where they can no longer attend secondary school or university and are prohibited from letting their voices be heard outside the house, and where the EU has estimated that basic health services are available to just 10% of women. By driving women out of jobs and severely restricting their movements, the Taliban have ensured that female-headed households face destitution. The prospect of return is particularly frightening for women's rights activists who face imprisonment or death for their work. Pakistan and Iran should not force Afghans home – endangering lives and ending education for girls. But other governments too bear responsibility for this crisis. Poorer nations have been left to shoulder the strain of a high number of refugees, some of whom are in limbo due to Germany's closure of a humanitarian admission programme, and the bureaucracy surrounding a similiar programme in Australia. This has been a triple failure: a failure to welcome Afghans with a strong case for resettlement; to support them in countries which have accepted them; and to help those who are returning to Afghanistan. Western countries must live up to their promises to the Afghan people. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of Gary Neville's money
As a footballer Gary Neville was not known for his versatility. He was a one-club man who trundled up and down the right flank like a plough-horse. So it is heartening to see him switching things up politically. This week he became the latest Labour supporter to turn on them over tax. 'I honestly don't believe […] companies and small businesses should be deterred from employing people,' said Neville, who owns several businesses alongside his punditry gigs. 'So, I think the National Insurance rise was one that I feel probably could have been held back.' Leaving to one side the fact that Sky viewers might not mind living without his rabid commentary, there is a delicious schadenfreude in watching Neville, a noisy Labour fan, change tack. Last June, he even proved his commitment by taking Keir Starmer up the Langdale Pikes for a campaign interview, in what must have been the most tedious man-marking job of his life. Until recently Rachel Reeves has been blessed in her enemies. When she and Starmer broke a manifesto promise to whack farmers with inheritance tax, they couldn't have hoped for a better opponent than Jeremy Clarkson. Here was not some sympathetic turnip-tender on the breadline but a celeb who was on the record as saying dodging IHT was a reason he bought a farm. Number 10 must have rejoiced again in March when Alexander Armstrong, arguably the pre-eminent primetime posho, complained about VAT on private school fees. His quip that he was feeling 'extremely poor' did not land well with those who were actually feeling extremely poor. Now, even Labour's fans are rethinking. Neville was not the first. In February, the Iceland boss Richard Walker, who had supported Reeves' Budget, warned that, while it was right to look at 'levelling the playing field on tax', the Government had 'parked its tractor in the wrong place going after hard-working British farmers'. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Even Gary Neville's. Lower the voting age? Here's a better solution Full credit to Jeremy Corbyn for waiting until Labour had said they would lower the voting age before announcing his new party. The Government thought letting 16 and 17-year-olds have a go at the ballot box might give them the edge in a few marginals. Instead, they might hand a sizeable bloc to Corbo and his band of plucky dreamers, not to mention the Greens and even Reform. Luckily for Keir Starmer I have a solution. Rather than lowering the voting age, he should introduce a cut-off. Many problems in the UK are, we're told, down to our limitless brigades of pensioners. As they don't have day jobs or Xboxes to occupy them, voting provides a welcome distraction. With gilded pensions and houses they bought for a shilling and sixpence, they vote to preserve their interests. But you have to reapply for your driving licence at 70, so why not your voting licence? A short quiz could determine eligibility: should we keep the triple lock? Should the winter fuel allowance be extended to summer? Is the PM too young? Are the policemen too young? Is the Pope too young? I can foresee objections, so how about a compromise: you have 50 eligible voting years in your life and you can choose when to use them. If you wanted to torch them on idealism at 16, you would be free to, but you wouldn't be able to defend your pension later. Either way, surely this would be the kind of bold move Starmer had in mind when he promised 'action, not words'. At least, that's what he told Gary Neville, on a hillside in Cumbria.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
States of Alderney backs Guernsey Gaza statement
The States of Alderney has said it endorses a compassionate message from the government of Guernsey in highlighting the humanitarian situation in the letter, Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez said members were "profoundly concerned by the deaths and suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza".Alderney's States said it endorsed "the compassionate message from the government of Guernsey in highlighting the humanitarian situation in Gaza alongside the numerous other humanitarian crises in the world, and the commitment to upholding the principles of international law".Israel, which controls the entry of all supplies into Gaza, has blamed Hamas for any cases of malnutrition. The Guernsey letter was signed by 17 deputies pressuring de Sausmarez to write to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. De Sausmarez said: "Members are deeply moved by the plight of people of all ages who are caught up in any conflict."The members hope that the global community soon finds and implements effective ways to protect civilians, alleviate human suffering and secure lasting peace."
