International Ruling Will Ratchet Up Accountability For Climate Action
In it's advisory opinion, the world's highest court ruled that states are legally obligated to halt the production and use of fossil fuels, and those that fail to prevent climate harm could be held liable for reparations. The Court also underscored that states must meet their obligations under human rights law, customary international law and other treaties, beyond just the Paris agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
'This ruling is an incredibly significant development, which will open new avenues for accountability, including climate litigation through domestic, regional and international courts," says ELI's Director, Research and Legal, Dr Matt Hall.
'It will inevitably have bearing on both New Zealand policy making and global negotiations.
'It dispels the argument that small states like New Zealand are too small to matter. It's clear, we have obligations, and we need to deliver on them.'
The ruling, made early Thursday morning in the Hague, followed a request spearheaded by Vanuatu, other Pacific Island nations, climate-vulnerable countries, and youth campaigners worldwide.
The Court's ruling has been heralded for bringing clarity to the obligations of states in regard to fossil fuels:
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.'
The Court's advisory opinion is extensive, covering areas including climate mitigation, adaptation, remedies for climate damage, and human rights.
It highlights the responsibility of states to put in place regulatory and legislative measures to limit corporate emissions. The ruling also says that the adverse effects of climate change may impair the enjoyment of the right to life which is enshrined in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Advisory opinions are authoritative interpretations of binding international law and hold significant legal influence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
17 hours ago
- Scoop
Adjusting The Temperature: Climate Change And International Law
Before the clenching constipation of reluctant and cloddish policy makers, climate change advocates have found courts surprisingly amenable to their concerns. Bodies of environmental law in national courts and international tribunals are now burgeoning on the obligations of states to address ecological harms and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. As is often the case, it's the children at the vanguard, pointing scolding fingers at the adults in filing petitions and drawing attention to the dangers of tardiness. 2025 is proving to be something of a good year for climate change litigants and activists. On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as requested by Chile and Colombia, issued an advisory opinion addressing the scope and extent of obligations with respect to respecting, protecting and fulfilling substantive rights regarding the climate emergency; procedural rights relevant to the same; and clarifying obligations towards vulnerable groups (children, environment activists, women, indigenous groups and so forth). The advisory note is more onerous in not merely insisting that States observe a negative obligation – that is, to not violate rights directly – but that they also take positive steps through 'reinforced due diligence' to deal with foreseeable harms arising from climate change. This entailed identifying a right to a safe climate. The prohibition against causing irreversible damage to the climate and the environment was also deemed a jus cogens norm, compellable under international customary law similarly to the prohibition against genocide, slavery and torture. Striking a novel note, the IACtHR also noted that Nature and its components should be acknowledged as subjects of rights, a move in what has been described as 'ecological constitutionalism' in the Latin American context. On July 23, the International Court of Justice also handed down an advisory opinion that promises to be momentous in its aggravations and irritations – at least to certain lawmakers and industries. For those countries still reaping the material, gluttonous rewards of fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption, this is bound to be of some concern. Begun daringly in 2019 as an action by a group of Pacific Island students from the University of the South Pacific, with able support from Vanuatu, the court unanimously found that producing and consuming fossil fuels 'may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to that state'. Vanuatu's submission to the Court emphasised the grim consequences of not adequately addressing state obligations to address greenhouse gas emissions, including the shocks of internal displacement. 'The forced displacement from ancestral lands and ecosystems leads to grave cultural losses. It impairs territorial sovereignty and inhibits the affected peoples from making a free choice about their futures.' The decision is important in several respects. It opines that countries have a legal obligation to mitigate climate change and limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a goal outlined in the Paris Agreement. States are accordingly obligated to advance climate plans that reflect their 'highest possible ambition' in making 'adequate contribution' in limiting temperature rises to that level. The discretion of countries to arrive at elastic 'nationally determined contributions' was limited by the requirements of 'due diligence'. Any such determined contributions had to be compliant with the obligations under the Paris Agreement and international environmental law. The Court also reached the view that responsibility for breaches of climate change treaties 'and in relation to the loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.' Direction is also given on what a State wrong in not mitigating climate change might look like. A failure to take the appropriate steps to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, 'including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumptions, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies' could be 'an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' The wrong arises, not from the emissions as such, but from the failure to protect 'the climate change system from significant harm resulting from anthropogenic emissions of such gases.' The decision is crucial in considering historical responsibility and the thorny issue of reparations, the nature and quantum of the latter being dependent 'on the circumstances'. Both nation states and 'injured individuals' could seek reparations from historically heavy emitters, a point previously dealt with most unsatisfactorily via 'loss and damage' finance discussions through UN climate negotiations. The impediment that such finance be only provided voluntarily is potentially overcome by the legal obligation to repair harm. This is particularly important for countries with economies at risk to climate change disruption (tourism, fishing, agriculture) and the enormous costs arising from dealing with environmental disasters. The ICJ proved dismissive of arguments – often made by states with powerful fossil fuel lobbies – that attributing precise responsibility in the context of climate change was impossible. The Court observed 'that while climate change is caused by cumulative GHG emissions, it is scientifically possible to determine each State's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.' Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanum, is already filling his file with teasing blackmail for appropriate targets. Given its location in the Pacific, and prominence as a fossil fuel exporter, Australia is in his sights. 'Australia,' he told Australia's Radio National, 'is committing internationally wrongful acts as it is sponsoring and subsidising fossil fuel production and excessive emissions.' Canberra needed 'to align itself with the advisory opinion and cease this conduct that is contributing to emissions and start making reparations.' From being a slow field of speculative pursuit and vague pronouncements, climate change litigation has become a branch of international customary law. Current developments in this field even include a petition to the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights from May 2025 seeking to do something along the lines pursued by the ICJ and the IACtHR, with a focus on African states. This development will be unwelcome among the fossil fuel lobby groups that still threaten and bribe political representatives – and it's been a long time coming.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Government Faces Legal Challenge For Under-Resourcing Of Fisheries Conservation And Research
The Environmental Law Initiative says the Government is under-levying the fishing industry by millions of dollars, which is contributing to the insufficient resourcing of marine conservation research and the decreasing deployment of fishery observers. Each year, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries sets levies on the fishing industry, based on advice from Fisheries NZ. Levies were brought in by the National Government in 1994 with the support of the fishing industry, to replace resource rentals which until then had put a price on commercial access to fishery stocks. ELI's director, research and legal Dr Matt Hall says, 'The setting of levies should be determined by what services, including scientific research and observer coverage, are required to meet the purposes of the Fisheries Act. 'That core purpose is to allow for utilisation of fishery resources whilst ensuring sustainability.' 'Yet, we have a situation right now, where we have reduced levies and at the same time large gaps in our ability to gather information critical to the sustainability of New Zealand's fisheries. 'As an example, we have no observers for high-risk inshore fisheries for threatened species, such as hoiho yellow-eyed penguins. 'This means in some instances, we just don't know what interactions are happening because in some smaller vessels there are neither observers or cameras.' Data from the Department of Conservation shows the northern population of hoiho has collapsed 80% since 2008, from 739 breeding pairs to just 143. Meanwhile, the Government has reduced observer days in inshore fisheries from 1,953 days in 2020/21 to 250 in the current year. Across the board, observer coverage has been drastically reduced. 'These services are the backbone of sustainable fishing. They need to be properly resourced so that the Government can monitor and protect vulnerable marine species like dolphins, seabirds, and turtles from the impacts of fishing.' Dr Hall says, if the government had kept up with inflation, the levy should now be at $54.2 million. Yet Minister of Oceans and Fisheries Shane Jones set the levy to $36.3 million in the 2024/25 year (this included the return of $3.2m in accrued overcharges to the industry). This was despite Seafood industry export earnings topping $2 billion. Government paying costs for industry research ELI is taking legal action against the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, Minister of Conservation, the Ministry of Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation, alleging that the Government has wrongly paid the costs of numerous fisheries research projects, rather than requiring the fishing industry to pay. ELI says this breaches the cost recovery rules under the Fisheries Act. In the last two years, ELI alleges the Government paid at least $3,663,252 for projects and services, which should have been paid for by the industry, at least in part. Dr Hall says, these include paying for part of the costs of large-scale trawl surveys which the industry relies on to inform their fishing. 'This amounts to a subsidy for an industry that makes millions in profit. 'We are challenging the lawfulness of these decisions made by Ministers and Crown agencies in the High Court. 'It's important that the public interest and our taiao are defended.'
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Council Welcomes Certainty On Its Role In Protecting The Rakaia
On August 1, the Environment Court released its decision on an application for declarations regarding our role in enforcing the RWCO. This was filed by the Environmental Defence Society and North Canterbury Fish & Game. The Court agreed with the Environment Canterbury position that the RWCO restricts our regional plan and consenting function, and that by issuing and monitoring consents in accordance with our Land and Water Regional Plan, we are upholding the RWCO. The Court disagreed with the claim that our duty could lead to an obligation to monitor and/or enforce compliance with the restrictions and prohibitions within the RWCO itself. Chief Executive Dr Stefanie Rixecker acknowledged that last week's Court decision gives Council some reassurance in its role. "Braided rivers like the Rakaia are a unique feature of the Waitaha landscape, and we take our responsibility to uphold their mana seriously. We also recognise that they provide irrigation water to hundreds of farms in the region – contributing to businesses and livelihoods for thousands of Cantabrians," Dr Rixecker said. "We welcome this clarity from the Court. We will continue to ensure water use in the Rakaia upholds the RWCO by issuing and consents that are consistent with the Order and monitoring compliance with those consents. "Alongside fulfilling our regulatory role, we continue to work with communities and our partners and maintain our Rakaia water balance model to build understanding and to protect cultural and ecological values in the catchment." Environment Canterbury recognises the Court decision could be subject to an appeal in future.
