In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change
Stephanie van den Berg
and
Alison Withers
, Reuters
President of the International Court of Justice Yuji Iwasawa (C) and other members of the top UN court as it handed down a landmark ruling on climate change.
Photo:
JOHN THYS / AFP
The United Nations' highest court said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion
set to determine future environmental litigation
.
The International Court of Justice said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate.
The opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a
victory for small island and low-lying states
that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law.
"States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion.
He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
Earlier, as he started a just over two-hour reading of the court's opinion, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response.
"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.
Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem.
The deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.
"This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace.
Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney, at the Center For International Environmental Law laid out the possibility of big emitters being sued.
"If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress," he said.
Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: 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?
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 at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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.
They had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Late last year, in the "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN 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 3000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump says Gazans starving, contradicting Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump said on Monday many people were starving in Gaza and suggested Israel could do more on humanitarian access, as Palestinians struggled to feed their children a day after Israel declared steps to improve supplies. As the death toll from two years of war in Gaza nears 60,000, a growing number of people are dying from starvation and malnutrition, Gaza health authorities say, with images of starving children shocking the world and fuelling international criticism of Israel over sharply worsening conditions. Describing starvation in Gaza as real, Trump's assessment put him at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said on Sunday "there is no starvation in Gaza" and vowed to fight on against the Palestinian militant group Hamas - a statement he reposted on X on Monday. Trump, speaking during a visit to Scotland, said Israel has a lot of responsibility for aid flows, and that a lot of people could be saved. "You have a lot of starving people," he said. "We're going to set up food centres," with no fences or boundaries to ease access, Trump said. The US would work with other countries to provide more humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, including food and sanitation, he said. A White House spokesperson said additional details on the food centres would be "forthcoming." "WHEN YOU GO TO BED HUNGRY, YOU WAKE UP HUNGRY" On Monday, the Gaza health ministry said at least 14 people had died in the past 24 hours of starvation and malnutrition, bringing the war's death toll from hunger to 147, including 88 children, most in just the last few weeks. Israel announced several measures over the weekend, including daily humanitarian pauses to fighting in three areas of Gaza, new safe corridors for aid convoys, and airdrops. The decision followed the collapse of ceasefire talks on Friday. Wessal Nabil from Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza described the struggle of trying to feed her three children. "When you go to bed hungry, you wake up hungry. We distract them with anything ... to make them calm down," she told Reuters. "I call on the world, on those with merciful hearts, the compassionate, to look at us with compassion, to be kind to us, to stand with us until aid comes in and ensure it reaches us." Two Israeli defence officials said the international pressure prompted the new Israeli measures, as did the worsening conditions on the ground. UN agencies said a long-term and steady supply of aid was needed. The World Food Programme said 60 trucks of aid had been dispatched - short of target. Almost 470,000 people in Gaza are enduring famine-like conditions, with 90,000 women and children in need of specialist nutrition treatments, it said. "Our target at the moment, every day is to get 100 trucks into Gaza," WFP Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe, Samer Abdel Jaber, told Reuters. Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, told Reuters the situation is catastrophic. "At this time, children are dying every single day from starvation, from preventable disease. So time has run out." Netanyahu has denied any policy of starvation towards Gaza, saying aid supplies would be kept up whether Israel was negotiating a ceasefire or fighting. A spokesperson for COGAT, the Israeli military aid coordination agency, said Israel had not placed a time limit on the humanitarian pauses in its military operation, a day after UN aid chief Tom Fletcher said Israel had decided 'to support a one-week scale-up of aid". "We hope this pause will last much longer than a week, ultimately turning into a permanent ceasefire,' Fletcher's spokesperson, Eri Kaneko, said on Monday. Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Compared to last week, UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said, there had only been a "small uptick" in the amount of aid being transported into Gaza since Israel started the humanitarian pauses. TRUMP SAYS HAMAS DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH In his statement on Sunday, Netanyahu said Israel would continue to fight until it achieved the release of remaining hostages held by Hamas and the destruction of its military and governing capabilities. Trump said Hamas had become difficult to deal with in recent days, but he was talking with Netanyahu about "various plans" to free hostages still held in the enclave. The war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants attacked communities across the border in southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people and taking another 251 hostage, according to Israeli tallies. The Gaza health ministry said that 98 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire in the past 24 hours. Some of the trucks that made it into Gaza were seized by desperate Palestinians, and some by armed looters, witnesses said. "Currently aid comes for the strong who can race ahead, who can push others and grab a box or a sack of flour. That chaos must be stopped and protection for those trucks must be allowed," said Emad, 58, who used to own a factory in Gaza City. The WFP said it has 170,000 metric tons of food in the region, outside Gaza, which would be enough to feed the whole population for the next three months if it gets the clearance to bring into the enclave. COGAT said more than 120 truckloads of aid were distributed in Gaza on Sunday by the UN and international organizations. More aid was expected on Monday. Qatar said it had sent 49 trucks that arrived in Egypt en route for Gaza. Jordan and the United Arab Emirates airdropped supplies. Israel cut off aid to Gaza from the start of March in what it said was a means to pressure Hamas into giving up dozens of hostages it still holds, and reopened aid with new restrictions in May. Hamas accuses Israel of using hunger as a weapon. Israel says it abides by international law but must prevent aid from being diverted by militants, and blames Hamas for the suffering of Gaza's people.
RNZ News
14 hours ago
- RNZ News
Viral 'honour' killing in southwest Pakistan triggers national outrage
By Ariba Shahid and Saleem Ahmed , Reuters Human rights activists shout slogans during a protest in Quetta. Photo: AFP / Banaras Khan A viral video of the "honour killing" of a woman and her lover in a remote part of Pakistan has ignited national outrage, prompting scrutiny of long-standing tribal codes and calls for justice in a country where such killings often pass in silence. While hundreds of so-called honour killings are reported in Pakistan each year, often with little public or legal response, the video of a woman and man accused of adultery being taken to the desert by a group of men to be killed has struck a nerve. The video shows the woman, Bano Bibi, being handed a Koran by a man identified by police as her brother. "Come walk seven steps with me, after that you can shoot me," she said, and she walks forward a few feet and stops with her back to the men. The brother, Jalal Satakzai, then shoots her three times and she collapses. Seconds later he shoots and kills the man, Ehsan Ullah Samalani, whom Bano was accused of having an affair with. Once the video of the killings in Pakistan's Balochistan province went viral, it brought swift government action and condemnation from politicians, rights groups and clerics. Civil rights lawyer Jibran Nasir said, though, the government's response was more about performance than justice. "The crime occurred months ago, not in secrecy but near a provincial capital, yet no one acted until 240 million witnessed the killing on camera," he said. "This isn't a response to a crime. It's a response to a viral moment." Police have arrested 16 people in Balochistan's Nasirabad district, including a tribal chief and the woman's mother. The mother, Gul Jan Bibi, said the killings were carried out by family and local elders based on "centuries-old Baloch traditions", and not on the orders of the tribal chief. "We did not commit any sin," she said in a video statement that also went viral. "Bano and Ehsan were killed according to our customs." She said her daughter, who had three sons and two daughters, had run away with Ehsan and returned after 25 days. Police said Bano's younger brother, who shot the couple, remains at large. Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti said it was a "test" case and vowed to dismantle the illegal tribal courts operating outside the law. Police had earlier said a jirga, an informal tribal council that issues extrajudicial rulings, had ordered the killings. The video sparked online condemnation, with hashtags like #JusticeForCouple and #HonourKilling trending. The Pakistan Ulema Council, a body of religious scholars, called the killings "un-Islamic" and urged terrorism charges against those involved. Dozens of civil society members and rights activists staged a protest on Saturday in the provincial capital Quetta, demanding justice and an end to parallel justice systems. "Virality is a double-edged sword," said Arsalan Khan, a cultural anthropologist and professor who studies gender and masculinity. "It can pressure the state into action, but public spectacle can also serve as a strategy to restore ghairat, or perceived family honour, in the eyes of the community." Pakistan outlawed honour killings in 2016 after the murder of social media star Qandeel Baloch, closing a loophole that allowed perpetrators to go free if they were pardoned by family members. Rights groups say enforcement remains weak, especially in rural areas where tribal councils still hold sway. "In a country where conviction rates often fall to single digits, visibility - and the uproar it brings - has its advantages," said constitutional lawyer Asad Rahim Khan. "It jolts a complacent state that continues to tolerate jirgas in areas beyond its writ." The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported at least 405 honour killings in 2024. Most victims are women, often killed by relatives claiming to defend family honour. Khan said rather than enforcing the law, the government has spent the past year weakening the judiciary and even considering reviving jirgas in former tribal areas. "It's executive inaction, most shamefully toward women in Balochistan," Khan said. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in recent months has asked senior ministers to evaluate proposals to revive jirgas in Pakistan's former tribal districts, including potential engagement with tribal elders and Afghan authorities. The Prime Minister's Office and Pakistan's information minister did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Balochistan killings were raised in Pakistan's Senate, where the human rights committee condemned the murders and called for action against those who convened the jirga. Lawmakers also warned that impunity for parallel justice systems risked encouraging similar violence. Activists and analysts, however, say the outrage is unlikely to be sustained. "There's noise now, but like every time, it will fade," said Jalila Haider, a human rights lawyer in Quetta. "In many areas, there is no writ of law, no enforcement. Only silence." Haider said the killings underscore the state's failure to protect citizens in under-governed regions like Balochistan, where tribal power structures fill the vacuum left by absent courts and police. "It's not enough to just condemn jirgas," Haider said. "The real question is: why does the state allow them to exist in the first place?" -Reuters
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
