logo
ICJ begins handing down landmark climate opinion

ICJ begins handing down landmark climate opinion

eNCA5 days ago
THE HAGUE - The world's top court on Wednesday began delivering a much-anticipated ruling laying out what legal obligations countries have to prevent climate change and whether polluters should pay up for the consequences.
It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say the judges' opinion could reshape climate justice, with major impacts on laws around the world.
In opening remarks, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the consequences of climate change "are severe and far-reaching: they affect both natural ecosystems and human populations".
"These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change," he said.
The push for a court opinion was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate change minister, said the ICJ ruling could be a "game-changer" in the fight against global warming.
"We've been going through this for 30 years... It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have," Regenvanu told AFP.
The United Nations has tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court that adjudicates disputes between nations, 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?
ICJ advisory opinions are not binding upon states and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court.
But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world's highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies and ongoing legal battles.
Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said the ICJ should "clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis."
"And that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes, and public debates," he told AFP.
To help answer the two questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world.
Analysts say Wednesday's ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action.
Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like "No more delay, climate justice today".
Those bringing the cases are often from climate-vulnerable communities and countries, alarmed by the pace of progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels.
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.
'Disappear beneath the waves'
ANP/AFP | Lina Selg
In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court's biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements.
In what was billed a "David Vs Goliath" battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet.
Major polluters, including the US and India, warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed.
The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime.
But smaller states said this 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.
"The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused," said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu.
These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs.
Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country's history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges.
"Despite producing less than 0.01 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia," said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu.
Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court, said climate change will become "catastrophic as the years go by, if we do not course-correct."
"The urgency of the matter, the seriousness of why we're here, and how important this is, is not lost upon all Pacific Islanders, all small island countries," he told AFP
"That's why we're looking to the ICJ."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bumpy road lies ahead for the nation
Bumpy road lies ahead for the nation

IOL News

time2 hours ago

  • IOL News

Bumpy road lies ahead for the nation

President Cyril Ramaphosa and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, met in the While House recently. The US has been very critical of South Africa's foreign policy stance, which, on many occasions, went against the American national interests, according to the writer. Image: AFP September, a month synonymous with renewal and new beginnings, will be the most challenging period in South Africa's political and economic landscape due to actions likely to be taken by the US against the country. The first is the end of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is set to expire in September. However, the new 30% tariffs introduced by the US for SA will likely override the existing AGOA conventions when they take effect at the beginning of August 2025. The second biggest conundrum will be the possibility of the US Senate's decision on the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025. The ground is fertile in the US to act against the South African government, which is believed to have acted against the US's national interests. The US has been very critical of South Africa's foreign policy stance, which, on many occasions, went against the American national interests. This has been evident in their divergent voting patterns on various United Nations (UN) platforms, where South Africa and the US have often taken opposing positions. The relations between the US - SA did not break during the Trump administration, and Joe Biden also raised similar concerns about South Africa. The ANC should be told, 'You made your bed, now lie in it.' They have chosen to strengthen their alliances with the geopolitical rivals to the West at the expense of decades of working partnerships with the Western powers. It was very shortsighted of the ANC to believe that there would not be actions or reactions from the side of the US on how it is being undermined by Africa's powerful regional bloc. The escalating tensions between the US and South Africa took an uphill path in 2022 when South Africa was alleged by the US to have loaded the Lady R with armaments that would be used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The South African government dismissed this allegation. In 2023, in the aftermath of Israeli attacks by Hamas on the 7th October 2023, we saw South Africa continuing with its support for Hamas, a designated terror organisation by countries such as the US and European Union (EU) countries. Dr. Naledi Pandor kicked off a diplomatic storm when she agreed that she had a telephonic conversation with the same Hamas and offered them humanitarian support, a vicious group that invaded Israel and killed more than 1 200 innocent civilians and kidnapped more than 250 people, some are still held under the tunnels in Gaza to date. Just when we thought that the ANC would tone down its anti-US messaging, it did the unexpected by dragging the State of Israel into the UN's International Court of Justice (ICJ). Their legal basis was that Israel was committing genocidal acts in Gaza. This act by the South African government would be seen as heroic by some, while others criticised the move because it would not be a viable solution to the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict. It is possible that the ANC's thinking at the time was to maximise its electoral fortunes, which drastically dropped to below 50%. Their energy on the issue is draining because it is not yielding them the political capital they had planned. If indeed South Africa was genuine about fighting for the rights of the vulnerable people around the world, they could have started with their population, wherein 14 million people are living in dire poverty, not knowing what they would eat the following day. A country where quite a sizable youth are unemployed. The country that experiences 62 murders per day for the whole year, a number that is unmatched throughout the world, we are the murder capital. Still, the political leadership ignores what is affecting their people. Mokgatlhe is a political analyst and consultant.

Trump addresses Gaza's humanitarian crisis and warns of starvation
Trump addresses Gaza's humanitarian crisis and warns of starvation

IOL News

time3 hours ago

  • IOL News

Trump addresses Gaza's humanitarian crisis and warns of starvation

Israeli activists held a protest march in Tel Aviv last week denouncing the ongoing food shortage and forced displacement of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The United Nations in June 2025 condemned what it claimed was Israel's "weaponisation of food" in Gaza and called it a war crime, as aid agencies urge action and warnings about malnutrition multiply. Image: AFP US President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the people of Gaza are facing "real starvation". Speaking in Scotland after meeting Britain's leader, Trump contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had earlier dismissed fears of famine in Gaza as Hamas propaganda. Trump said the US and its partners would help set up food centres to feed the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza facing what UN aid agencies warn is a deadly wave of hunger and malnutrition. 'We're going to be getting some good strong food, we can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids -- that's real starvation stuff,' he told reporters at a news conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 'We have to help on a humanitarian basis before we do anything. We have to get the kids fed,' Trump said. Trump's remarks came after Netanyahu, during a reception on Sunday for Trump's spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain in Jerusalem, declared: 'There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The US already backs food centres under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), but the group's high-security operations have been criticised after repeated incidents in which Israeli troops have reportedly fired on civilians near its distribution points. Trump said the UK and European Union would back the new effort, and that the new food centres would be easier to access -- 'where the people can walk in, and no boundaries'. 'It's crazy what's going on over there,' he added. The war in Gaza has dragged on for almost 22 months, creating a dire humanitarian crisis only exacerbated by an Israeli blockade on supplies imposed from March to late May. The easing of the blockade coincided with the beginning of the GHF's operations, which effectively sidelined Gaza's traditionally UN-led aid distribution system and have been criticised as grossly inadequate. In recent days, the UN and humanitarian agencies have begun delivering more truckloads of food after the Israeli military declared a daily "tactical pause" in the fighting and opened secure aid routes amid mounting international outrage over hunger in the territory. Jamil Safadi said he had been getting up before dawn for two weeks to search for food, and yesterday was his first success. 'For the first time, I received about five kilos of flour, which I shared with my neighbour,' said the 37-year-old, who shelters with his wife, six children and a sick father in a tent in Tel al-Hawa. The Israeli defence ministry's civil affairs agency COGAT said the UN and aid organisations had been able to pick up 120 truckloads of aid on Sunday and distribute it inside Gaza, with more on the way yesterday. Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have begun airdropping aid packages into Gaza, while Egypt has sent trucks through its Rafah border crossing to an Israeli post just inside the territory. The UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, cautiously welcomed Israel's recent moves but warned Gaza needed at least 500 to 600 trucks of basic food, medicine and hygiene supplies daily. Netanyahu has denied Israel was deliberately starving civilians, but yesterday two local rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, accused the country of 'genocide' - a first for Israeli NGOs. THE MERCURY

Remarkable International Court of Justice advisory opinion gives legal muscle to climate accountability
Remarkable International Court of Justice advisory opinion gives legal muscle to climate accountability

Daily Maverick

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

Remarkable International Court of Justice advisory opinion gives legal muscle to climate accountability

The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support and makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a remarkable advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The world's highest court left no doubt that the duty of states to protect the climate are binding under UN climate treaties, and international law more broadly. Among the most striking elements are that major emitters can be held liable for climate reparations; that the 1.5°C goal under the Paris Agreement is legally binding; and that the statehood of small islands, which with sea-level rise might literally go under water, is protected. The 140-page advisory opinion itself is non-binding, but points to what is binding under climate treaties and broader law, internationally and locally. Responsibility and accountability for climate change are complex, but not so complex as to exclude suing a state for a wrongful act or breach of obligation. Harm can be attributed to such a breach, and the responsible state is under a duty to compensate. But how this plays out depends on whether the country has committed an internationally wrongful act, and on the facts of each case. My take is that the basis for litigation is stronger now. That said, how a specific court — say, in South Africa — would move from a breach of obligation to a compensatory award involves many steps. Major emitters across the world should take note. Eskom's bizarre move to 'decouple' the decommissioning of coal from its just energy transition plan will not measure up to stringent due diligence. And Sasol may well have to defend its massive greenhouse gas emissions and the cutting of funding for its own emission reduction roadmap in court. Advances in attribution science The ICJ finds that responsibility for 'internationally wrongful acts' can be established in principle, with apportionment depending on the facts of each case. The advisory opinion builds on advances in attribution science. The court distinguishes scientific attribution from legal attribution: science evaluates relative contributions and quantifies confidence levels. Courts attach responsibility to a state for its actions or omissions. The wrongful acts are not the emission of greenhouse gases per se, but the breach of climate and customary obligations. Importantly, the ICJ sees greenhouse gases emissions in other countries as relevant. So when vulnerable people sue a government for failing to act on climate, the emissions of other countries can be used in determining responsibility. For reparations to be awarded, a causal link must be established, says the advisory opinion. This is complex but possible. The ICJ acknowledges that causation in climate cases is more indirect than for local pollution, but not impossible. Attribution science will be crucial in specific cases, 'in concreto', as the ICJ seems fond of saying. Forms of reparation include restitution, compensation, and satisfaction. Expect more claims following this ICJ advisory opinion. Nationally determined contributions are how countries commit to actions under the 2015 Paris Agreement, and this year countries are preparing their second nationally determined contributions. The ICJ argues that while content is nationally determined, there are limits to discretion on how little countries can do. That seems good; some have taken national autonomy to extremes. The advisory opinion makes strong points that nationally determined contributions must show 'progression' and the 'highest possible ambition'. The court says that nationally determined contributions, taken together, must be capable of realising its objectives. By this, the advisory opinion means keeping the 1.5°C target alive, quite correctly. But climate is a problem of overusing a global commons, the atmosphere. That means only collective action, by all, can limit global warming levels. How individual countries connect to the collective effort depends on time, space (what others do), and therefore equity. However, the ICJ does not apply equity operationally to nationally determined contributions, which not only would have strengthened the opinion, but is also consistent with Paris Agreement provisions. Puzzling lapse This lapse is puzzling, as the advisory opinion generally strongly affirms the principle of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The advisory opinion clarifies that, adding 'in the light of different national circumstances' makes common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities dynamic. The core principle applies, and how it is applied changes as countries' circumstances evolve. With the ICJ's strong legal basis for applying common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, it will be important to apply equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in practice. The advisory opinion strongly emphasises the obligations of all states to mitigation. The ICJ is clear on fossil fuels, citing scientific consensus as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that they are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. The advisory opinion addresses both production and consumption. The decision from the global stocktake on transitioning away from fossil fuels is now a key component of states' mitigation obligations. States must implement domestic mitigation measures to achieve their nationally determined contributions. Failure to act — whether by granting exploration licences or providing subsidies — can constitute an internationally wrongful act, according to the advisory opinion. Countries also have an obligation to regulate private actors as a matter of due diligence. Again, this provides a strong legal basis for court cases against fossil fuel producers and consumers – and the latter includes all of us. The ICJ rejects the idea that climate treaties are a 'lex specialis' that excludes other rules. It finds no 'actual inconsistency' or 'discernible intention' to displace customary international law. This means even the US, despite President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, is not off the hook. Obligations apply to all states, whether or not they are parties to climate treaties. The legal term is erga omnes, here meaning every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. If a non-party state does not cooperate, it bears the full burden of demonstrating that its policies conform to customary obligations. On adaptation, the advisory opinion outlines obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. However, it is less specific on what stringent due diligence would mean in practice, other than for mitigation. The advisory opinion does, however, extend the basis for action on loss and damage. The ICJ notes that Paris Article 8 on loss and damage will not lead to liability or compensation. However, the Agreement is not a 'lex specialis', and so while there is considerable contention about states being liable for compensation from climate change impacts, the advisory opinion opens the door for using customary international law in climate litigation. Due diligence The advisory opinion strongly promotes a stringent standard of due diligence for preventing significant harm to the climate system. This heightened vigilance is required because of the seriousness and universal character of the climate threat. The standard varies depending on a state's capabilities, available scientific knowledge, risk of harm, and urgency. It requires an 'assessment in concreto '. The advisory opinion is not legally binding nor does it determine specifics. In South Africa, our 2024 Climate Change Act has as one of its objects to 'give effect to the Republic's international commitments and obligations in relation to climate change'. We have already chosen to take obligations seriously in our own law. On finance, the ICJ is quite brief but potentially very impactful. The advisory opinion is clear that finance obligations under Paris Article 9 must be implemented in the context of achieving the objectives in Article 2 — those include the temperature goal and financial flows. I read that as supporting the notion that if we want climate mitigation consistent with the 1.5°C target, we need finance commensurate with 1.5°C. The court said actual levels can be evaluated against the capacity of developed countries and the needs of developing countries. That finding will no doubt be debated in climate negotiations, as will the advisory opinion as a whole. Hopefully, countries will be more willing to agree in negotiations, knowing that if they do not, they may be sued. In sum, the advisory opinion is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support. The ICJ makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The world's highest court found that the 1.5°C goal is legally binding – the implications for action on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage and support are very far reaching. Every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. And private entities can expect stronger regulation of emissions. The basis for litigation is stronger now, including claims for reparations and failure to phase out fossil fuel. Courts across the world will be guided by the advisory opinion and must apply stringent standards of due diligence. As they do so, equity and ambition, informed by the best available science, should remain fundamental bases. DM Harald Winkler works as a professor at the University of Cape Town's School of Economics. He writes in his personal capacity.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store