ICJ begins handing down watershed climate opinion
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.
"I think it will be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through," said Ralph Regenvanu, climate change minister of Vanuatu.
The Pacific island nation spearheaded the push for a court opinion amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations.
"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' -
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."
"That's why we're looking to the ICJ."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Famine of the truth': Hunger in Gaza to be blamed on Hamas who ‘starves its own people'
Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer says the 'world looks away' when Hamas 'starves its own people' by depriving Palestinians of Israeli-funded aid. Human rights groups are demanding a resolution over who should bear the responsibility for the breakdown of aid in Gaza. After the UN claimed Israel was preventing aid from crossing into Gaza, the IDF released drone footage showing humanitarian aid supplies on the Gaza side of the border waiting to be distributed to Palestinians. 'There is no famine of Gaza, there is a famine of the truth, and Israel will not stop telling it,' Mr Mencer said. Warning: Distressing footage.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australia may be target of legal action on climate
Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague.
Perth Now
4 hours ago
- Perth Now
Australia may be target of legal action on climate
Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague.
