Inter-American Court Says States Must Protect People From Climate Change
The decision means that around 20 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean that recognize the court's jurisdiction must undertake legal reforms that could increase the requirements imposed on businesses, something environmentists have long advocated.
"States must adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising... from the degradation of the global climate system," the Costa Rica-based court said in response to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile.
It underlined that "the right to a healthy environment" is included among the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights.
The court is an autonomous legal institution that interprets and applies the American Convention, which has been ratified by more than 20 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru.
The court said countries must "adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations committed by state and private companies."
"States must urge all companies domiciled or operating in their territory to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and its impacts on human rights," it said.
The first government reaction to the decision came not from one of the OAS member states, but from the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which hailed it as "groundbreaking."
The ruling was also welcomed by environmentalists.
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which was involved in the case, said such "advisory opinions" were "authoritative statements of binding international law and carry substantial legal weight."
"The court has broken new ground and set a powerful precedent," said Nikki Reisch, the organization's climate and energy program director.
"The court's conclusions should put big polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, on notice: climate-destructive conduct violates the law."
Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), said the ruling established "legally binding standards" for the protection of the right to a healthy environment.
Marcella Ribeiro, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said that it was the first time an international court had "directly addressed climate change as a legal and structural human rights issue."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
7 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Inter-American Court Says States Must Protect People From Climate Change
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that countries belonging to the Organization of American States (OAS) have an obligation to take "all necessary measures" to protect populations from climate change. The decision means that around 20 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean that recognize the court's jurisdiction must undertake legal reforms that could increase the requirements imposed on businesses, something environmentists have long advocated. "States must adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising... from the degradation of the global climate system," the Costa Rica-based court said in response to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile. It underlined that "the right to a healthy environment" is included among the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. The court is an autonomous legal institution that interprets and applies the American Convention, which has been ratified by more than 20 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. The court said countries must "adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations committed by state and private companies." "States must urge all companies domiciled or operating in their territory to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and its impacts on human rights," it said. The first government reaction to the decision came not from one of the OAS member states, but from the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which hailed it as "groundbreaking." The ruling was also welcomed by environmentalists. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which was involved in the case, said such "advisory opinions" were "authoritative statements of binding international law and carry substantial legal weight." "The court has broken new ground and set a powerful precedent," said Nikki Reisch, the organization's climate and energy program director. "The court's conclusions should put big polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, on notice: climate-destructive conduct violates the law." Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), said the ruling established "legally binding standards" for the protection of the right to a healthy environment. Marcella Ribeiro, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said that it was the first time an international court had "directly addressed climate change as a legal and structural human rights issue."
Int'l Business Times
8 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
World Bank's IFC Ramps Up Investment Amid Global Uncertainty
While the world economy faces instability from US President Donald Trump's threats of a global trade war, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) is dramatically ramping up its investment activities. The Washington-based IFC -- the World Bank's private sector arm -- mobilizes private capital and provides financing to support businesses across emerging economies. Though not widely known outside development circles, the organization plays a crucial role in creating jobs and supporting growth in less developed regions. "The world economy has been going through a bit of a turbulent time, but what I must say is that even though there is turbulence... we are seeing a lot of interest in investing in emerging countries," Makhtar Diop, the IFC's managing director, told AFP. This optimism is backed by concrete numbers. In the fiscal year ending June 30, preliminary data shows that the IFC committed over $71 billion -- nearly double its commitment from just three years ago and a significant jump from last year's record of $56 billion. The investment spans the globe, with more than $20 billion flowing to Latin America, $17 billion to Asia, and $15.4 billion to Africa. The dramatic increase stems from a deliberate strategic shift. Diop, an economist and former Senegalese finance minister, explained that the IFC has focused on becoming "simpler, more agile, and delegating decision-making to our teams that are in the field." This approach abandons the over-centralized structure that previously "was slowing down our ability to respond and seize new opportunities." The timing is significant. As Western economies pull back from direct aid to developing countries -- constrained by mounting debts, rising defense budgets, and increasingly inward-looking politics -- the IFC has accelerated. "It's totally understandable that they have fewer resources to make available in the form of grants to developing countries," Diop acknowledges. However, he emphasized that World Bank funding for the world's poorest countries remains fully replenished, calling it "the most efficient and best way to support countries." The IFC's expanding role within the World Bank Group is evident. Today, its funding nearly matches the support the bank provides directly to governments, making it an equal partner in development efforts. The organization is also attracting new types of investors. Many co-financing partners now come from regions that traditionally haven't invested outside their home areas. The IFC's largest renewable energy investment in Africa, for example, was completed with a Dubai-based company. These investors trust the IFC not only for its market knowledge but also for the risk-mitigation tools it offers, Diop said. In Africa particularly, the IFC pursues a strategy of identifying and supporting "national champions" -- successful local companies that need help to become more competitive and globally integrated. A significant portion of the IFC's mandate involves sustainability projects, an area where Diop decries debates with false choices between economic development and the environment, especially in electricity projects that form an important part of the agency's portfolio. "It happens that today, you don't have to make that trade-off because the sustainable solutions are often the cheaper ones, and that's the beauty of what we are seeing," he said. While fossil fuel generation remains part of the energy mix to ensure grid stability, the economics increasingly favor clean alternatives. Behind all these investments lies an urgent demographic reality: 1.2 billion young people will reach working age in developing countries over the next decade. For the World Bank, creating employment for this massive cohort is paramount. "The first question of any leader you meet from the developing world is how can you help to create jobs for young people?" Diop observed. Beyond infrastructure development that stimulates broader economic activity, Diop identifies tourism, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture as the most promising sectors for job creation. These industries can offer the scale and growth potential needed to absorb the coming wave of young workers entering the global economy.
DW
13 hours ago
- DW
Can Trump help repair Israeli ties with Lebanon, Syria? – DW – 07/03/2025
What are chances of the US brokering Israeli ties with Lebanon and Syria? Analysts point to obstacles like the occupied Golan Heights and Israel's presence in Lebanon — and blame Trump's Nobel Peace Prize aspirations. While the dust is still settling after the 12-day-war between Iran, Israel and the US, diplomacy across the Middle East is on the rise. According to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "the victory [over Iran] opens the path to dramatically enlarge the peace accords." Already, new billboards across Israel feature Arab leaders including the presidents of Lebanon and Syria, with US President Donald Trump in the center, alongside the words "The 'Abraham Alliance: It's Time for a New Middle East." The term "Abraham Accords" was coined in 2020 for US-brokered diplomatic normalization deals between Israel and several Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. However, forging ties with Syria or Lebanon is somewhat more delicate. "The signatories to the Abraham Accords were never really in conflict, whereas Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and Syria are in a decades-long conflict," Neil Quilliam, associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the London-based think tank Chatham House, told DW. "And that conflict remains hot," he added. Officially, Syria and Israel have been at war since 1967. That year, Israel occupied the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau at the border with Syria, which it later annexed. The United Nations never recognized the move, but the US recognized the area as Israeli territory in 2019, during Donald Trump's first presidency. After Syria's current President Ahmed al-Sharaa led an alliance of militias who overthrew the country's long-term dictator Bashar Assad in December 2024, Israeli troops expanded their presence on the Syrian side of a 1974 armistice line. Notwithstanding Israeli military in Syria as well as repeated attacks on Syrian ground, US President Trump has been increasingly pushing for a potential security agreement between Israel and Syria. On Wednesday, Syrian state TV reported that it was impossible to talk about "negotiations over a new agreement unless the occupation fully adheres the 1974 disengagement agreement and withdraws from the areas it has penetrated." Also, Tom Barrack, the US special envoy to Syria, told the Turkish news agency Anadolu that Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa "has indicated that he doesn't hate Israel and that he wants peace on that border." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar already said that his country was interested in adding Syria to the Abraham Accords. However, he also emphasized that "the control of the Golan Heights will remain part of the State of Israel under any future peace agreement." For Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East Security at the London-based think tank Royal United Services Institute, all of this could point to a smaller, albeit also significant move. "Even a preliminary non-aggression agreement, short of a comprehensive settlement between Syria and Israel, would be a game changer in the region," she told DW. "However remote this may seem now, diplomatic backchannelling in recent months has focused on steps that could jumpstart Syria's economic recovery via sanctions relief, ensuring it does not fall victim to a resurgence of Iran-linked violence, and deconfliction talks between Turkey and Israel," she added. "All this points towards US-supported stabilization efforts in Syria and for the sake of the war-weary Syrian people, these efforts matter," Ozcelik said. Meanwhile, Neil Quilliam doesn't see any chances for a nearing peace deal with Israel's neighbor in the north. "Lebanon's President Aoun and the political class around him cannot deliver peace as there will be too much domestic opposition inside the country," he told DW. Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia whose military wing is considered a terrorist group by several key players, including the US and the European Union, started attacking Israel from Lebanon's south. After some 12 months of skirmishes, the situation escalated into eight weeks of war. Israel diminished Hezbollah's clout while more than 3,000 people were killed and large parts of Lebanon's south and Beirut's suburbs were heavily damaged in Israeli fire. While a ceasefire in January 2025 halted most of the strikes, some of the conditions attached to the deal, such as the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the deployment of Lebanese armed forces in the south, are yet to happen. "Israel still occupies five hilltop outposts in the country and continues to strike targets in Beirut at will," Quilliam said, adding that "also Hezbollah is not about to disarm, therefore, peace is off the table." "The recent lifting of sanctions on Syria by the US, in addition to the US talking about a desire for more peace deals with Syria and Lebanon, mirrors an effort that is supported by the Trump administration in line with its allies, not only Israel, but also Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar chief of all," Kelly Petillo, Middle East researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told DW. "Donald Trump has the idea of getting a Nobel Peace Prize by bringing peace to the Middle East," she said, adding that "short of a nuclear deal with Iran or a Gaza ceasefire, the US is now trying to achieve this through expanding the Abraham Accords." However, she sees issues with Trump's course. "Nobody is willing to contain Israel's maximalist instincts, which result not only in huge human suffering in neighboring countries, but also in potential loss of territory in Syria and Lebanon," Petillo said. There is also another key stumbling block to a peace deal with Lebanon and Syria, Chatham House's Quilliam and ECFR's Petillo both point out. "To be honest, Trump doesn't have any diplomatic skill, nor frankly, fundamentally, personally cares about bringing these visions all together to reach a compromise," Petillo said. "Trump is not a peacemaker," Quilliam agrees. "Trump's Mideast diplomacy papers over cracks." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
