UN experts demand probe into Belarus deaths in custody
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
9 minutes ago
- Arab News
International Court of Justice to deliver landmark climate ruling
THE HAGUE: The top United Nations court will on Wednesday hand down a landmark global legal blueprint for tackling climate change that also sets out top polluters' responsibilities toward the countries suffering most. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet. Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world. Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases. 'It will be the compass the world needs to course correct,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,' said Prasad. But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?' The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions — the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. 'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. 'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change.' Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime.' Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. 'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji. The United States under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. 'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. 'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. 'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. 'Our people... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. 'They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.'
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran
BERLIN: European powers plan fresh talks with Iran on its nuclear program in the coming days, the first since the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago, a German diplomatic source told AFP on Sunday. Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, 'are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week,' the source said. The trio had recently warned that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table. Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source. Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said. 'Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon,' the German source said. 'That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program,' the source added. Israel and Western nations have long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied. On June 13, Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear program on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 — just one day before the US strikes. Also Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader on nuclear issues. Larijani 'conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear program,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting. Putin had expressed Russia's 'well-known positions on how to stabilize the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear program,' he added. Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the United States joined Israel's bombing campaign. Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's 'snapback' mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran. After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had 'absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds' for reactivating the snapback sanctions. He elaborated in a post to social media Sunday. 'Through their actions and statements, including providing political and material support to the recent unprovoked and illegal military aggression of the Israeli regime and the US... the E3 have relinquished their role as 'Participants' in the JCPOA,' said Araghchi. That made any attempt to reinstate the terminated UN Security Council resolutions 'null and void,' he added. 'Iran has shown that it is capable of defeating any delusional 'dirty work' but has always been prepared to reciprocate meaningful diplomacy in good faith,' Araghchi wrote. However, the German source said Sunday that 'if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3.' Ali Velayati, an adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last week there would be no new nuclear talks with the United States if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Europe's moral authority in tatters after failing to sanction Israel
The EU last week faced a defining test of its commitment to human rights and international law — and it failed. Presented with irrefutable evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the bloc's foreign ministers gathered in Brussels to consider 10 possible actions: from suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement to imposing sanctions on Israeli officials and banning trade with illegal settlements. Yet, in the end, they took the politically easy path, securing a handful of humanitarian concessions from Israel in return for shelving all meaningful accountability. Let me be clear: aid access is essential. Gaza's suffering is beyond comprehension. And Palestinians dying from bullets and hunger will no doubt appreciate any relief. But allowing Israel to dictate the terms of food and medical relief — as if these are diplomatic chips and not legal obligations — strips humanitarianism of its moral force. EU officials may consider what they accomplished a 'diplomatic success.' They will state that they used diplomatic leverage to push for aid delivery. But what the EU hails as progress is, in truth, a lowering of the bar so far that the basic survival of a besieged population becomes the summit of European diplomacy. This is not only disappointing. It is dangerous. The EU-Israel Association Agreement explicitly states that respect for human rights is a cornerstone of bilateral relations. Yet, even after clear violations — documented by Amnesty International, the UN and dozens of credible nongovernmental organizations — the EU opted to maintain business as usual. Israel continues to enjoy access to European markets, research programs and diplomatic forums while violating the very principles the agreement is meant to uphold. According to Amnesty International, Israel has killed women and children with no evidence of any military target nearby. Journalists, medical personnel, ambulance drivers and kitchen supply teams have been killed without accountability. Schools, hospitals, bakeries and houses have been shelled. The UN's Independent International Commission of Inquiry further concluded that Israel's total blockade on Gaza — cutting off food, water, electricity and fuel — amounts to collective punishment and may constitute a crime against humanity or genocide. Despite this, the EU, which has implemented harsh sanctions against the Russian occupiers of Ukraine, chose not to sanction complicit officials and not to halt trade with illegal settlements. This inaction occurred even after its own diplomats, along with church leaders, saw with their own eyes the destruction caused to Palestinians and churches in the West Bank town of Al-Taybeh. If Europe still believes in its founding principles — human dignity, the rule of law and justice — then it must act like it. Daoud Kuttab In 2024, when independently documented Israeli war crimes were widely reported, the total two-way trade in goods between Israel and EU member states was €42.6 billion ($49.5 billion). The EU accounted for about 32 percent of Israel's total goods trade, contributing roughly 34.2 percent of its imports and 28.8 percent of its exports, making it Tel Aviv's biggest trading partner. Instead of agreeing on any one of the 10 sanctions options, EU officials — who needed a consensus of all 27 member countries — negotiated for food trucks, fuel for hospitals and other humanitarian aid that is already an obligation to be provided by an occupier according to international humanitarian law. This moral abdication is more than a policy failure — it is a betrayal of the EU's legal commitments. Europe's inaction sends a dangerous message: that Israel can commit atrocities with impunity. No political price. No trade penalty. No sanctions. The Geneva Conventions are not suggestions — they are binding obligations. And if countries that tout the rule of law allow them to be violated without consequence, their credibility collapses. Europe's silence does not just embolden Israel, it weakens the global order that holds war criminals accountable. The impact of this decision will not be confined to Gaza. If Israel, a state benefiting from billions in EU trade and cooperation, can bomb hospitals, starve civilians and raze homes with no repercussions, then what incentive remains for any state to respect humanitarian law? Europe's moral authority now lies in tatters. Some of the countries that prevented the EU from doing the right thing included Germany, Hungary, Italy and the Czech Republic. The fear of diplomatic fallout and the need to preserve internal cohesion at all costs outweighed the courage to uphold justice. Still, there is a path forward. If the EU as a whole will not act, its member states must. National governments should suspend arms transfers, ban trade with illegal settlements and sever cooperation with institutions complicit in occupation and apartheid. These are not radical steps, they are legal necessities. The stakes are too high for empty statements. Every day without accountability is a day of impunity, a day when another child dies under rubble, another family starves behind a blockade and another future is extinguished. If Europe still believes in its founding principles — human dignity, the rule of law and justice — then it must act like it. Because history is watching. And so are the people of Gaza.
