In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change
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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Could this be the way Starmer placates his revolting MPs?
Keir cannot afford another fiasco like welfare,' one Starmer loyalist told me, recalling the government's humiliating climbdown on proposed cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by Labour MPs. The prime minister knows the episode showed that his way of governing is unsustainable. He is consulting people widely this summer about how to turn things round. There's a fierce internal debate taking place. In Keir Starmer's right ear, Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, tells him to focus on wooing back voters in the red wall from Nigel Farage. In his left ear, soft-left cabinet ministers urge a more progressive approach to woo centre-left voters who have deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. They argue that these lost voters outnumber defectors to Reform by a margin of three to one. The soft left's allies in Downing Street want Starmer to emulate Bill Clinton, who fought back against a right-wing populist – Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives – after a rocky start to his first term in 1993. One minister admitted: 'There is a battle over the direction of the government. There is only one person who can resolve it. Keir has got to decide for himself – based on his values, who he is, who he wants to be.' The left-ear whisperers want the PM to trust the instincts that are serving him well on foreign affairs and apply them to the domestic agenda, too. Starmer appeared to be tacking leftwards when he told Tom Baldwin for the paperback version of his biography, published on Thursday: 'We have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive party.' He has hinted that he wants to tackle child poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit limit. The PM has nodded to Labour critics who argue – persuasively – that his government has sometimes acted left but talked right, and that it's no wonder, therefore, that it gets little credit from progressive voters. He said that issues such as clean energy, nationalising the railways and increasing the national minimum wage should be shouted louder from the rooftops. 'We should show we're proud of all that,' he told Baldwin. Starmer views this as part of 'telling a better story'. But you can only tell one if you know the direction in which you are heading. The battle isn't over yet; I'm told McSweeney is not convinced about a shift to the left. His critics say the shortcomings of attacking Reform head-on were illustrated when the science secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage was on the paedophile Jimmy Savile's side in the heated debate over internet regulation. The attack line was reportedly approved by No 10, but it backfired. It was the sort of smear we might expect from Reform. The lesson for Starmer: Labour can't 'out-Farage Farage', and the public will vote for the real thing if Labour tries to look like Reform-lite. Allies of McSweeney believe the red wall will decide the next general election, so Labour's primary pitch must be to the white working class. His internal opponents insist that trying to re-run the 2024 election triumph, McSweeney's greatest hit, will not work next time. They dispute the idea that Labour 'won' the north and the Midlands last year, saying that it reaped the benefit of a split on the right between the Conservatives and Reform, and that Labour regained seats seized by the Tories in 2019 mainly because Tory voters switched to Reform. At the next election, Farage will likely hoover up the right-wing vote. Crucially, the left vote will be split this time – inflicting deep damage to Labour unless Starmer can appeal to left-of-centre voters. He won't do that by tacking right, cutting benefits for the disabled and pensioners or aping Farage. For Starmer to win a presidential contest against the Reform leader, being the anti-Farage candidate will not be enough: he will have to offer progressive voters more than he has offered them so far. Another reason why Starmer should listen to the buzz in his left ear is that the new socialist party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will present another alternative to disenchanted Labour voters. It already has 600,000 registered supporters. Starmer won't lurch to the Corbyn hard left – and rightly so. But the sensible decision he should make this summer is that it's time for Labour to live up to its name and its values, and stop pretending to be something it is not.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump played the EU at its own game... and won
Squaring off across the table from Ursula von der Leyen was Donald Trump, banging his fists and demanding a 30 per cent blanket tariff. The clubhouse of the Trump Turnberry golf course had become the unlikely setting of a face-off between the two global superpowers – and ultimately, the EU's humiliation. The Telegraph has spoken to insiders who were in the room when the negotiations were taking place and has seen diplomatic notes that paint a clear picture. It's one of Mrs von der Leyen, the European Commission president, bowing to pressure from the US and being beaten at the bloc's own game. She had just agreed to the US imposing 15 per cent tariffs on EU goods entering America, while Britain had come away with a rate of 10 per cent. And at the end of it all, she and her team of EU negotiators had to put their thumbs up, their smiles not reaching their eyes, as they stood next to Mr Trump who boasted of the 'biggest deal ever made'. US officials had played hardball for the weeks and months leading up to the high-stakes showdown. Panicked European officials had turned to their Japanese counterparts for advice before flying to Scotland, asking for their advice on how to be successful like them. But ultimately, the EU was beaten by a dealmaker who played the bloc's game better than they could have played it. Over the years, Brussels has used the size of its single market to reinforce the need for trading partners to make concessions, rather than the other way round in talks over deals. And European leaders have voiced their frustration at the move. France's leaders described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and that the bloc hadn't been feared enough going into the talks. Trump plays hardball After a round of golf, the stage was set for the American negotiating team, including Mr Trump. A no-deal deadline was set for Friday, Aug 1. Without a pact Brussels would be subjected to the 30 per cent tariffs set out by the president in a letter to Mrs von der Leyen just two weeks earlier. European firms doing business in America would have become uncompetitive overnight if the EC president didn't shake hands on a pact. To secure this deal, the German eurocrat was told she would have to stomach a number of concessions, signing on the dotted line of an agreement that would be considered one-sided in favour of the Americans. Brussels also knew this agreement was needed to avert a nastier, more chaotic transatlantic trade war that would have left Europe without its most important ally until at least January 2029, when Mr Trump's second term comes to an end. To achieve this, member states agreed that they would have to stomach a blanket tariff because of a belief that the US president wouldn't settle without one, a source familiar with the negotiations told The Telegraph. Maros Sefcovic, the EU's trade commissioner, had briefed capitals that they simply wouldn't be able to do business in the US if that tariff rose to the 30 per cent demanded by Mr Trump. Therefore, they needed to settle on a number that would be an increase on the status quo originally charged on European imports into America – 14.8 per cent, according to one official. Some might argue that this was the EU being made to take a taste of its own medicine, with the bloc usually the first negotiator to reach for hard deadlines and use its size and strength to extract concessions from prospective partners. And it worked, the bloc had blinked. Before Mrs von der Leyen headed to Scotland, European capitals signed off on a mandate, perhaps for the first time, that would use a trade deal to increase tariffs from the current number. Behind the scenes For 24 minutes, the US President and the commission chief held an impromptu press conference under the eight chandeliers in the glamorous ball room at Trump Turnberry. With the Brussels and White House press packs ushered out, the real talks could begin. Mr Trump opened with his gambit of 30 per cent tariffs on all European products imported into America. The commission's first offer was 'high single digits', a source briefed on the wrangling said. The White House delegation stood firm as their European counterparts began slowly ratcheting their number closer to the American's figure. But ultimately, the commission's team kept their cool, at the recommendation of the Japanese, the most recent country to sign an agreement with the US. The Telegraph can reveal that a top aide to Mr Sefcovic had reached out to his Japanese counterpart for help on handling the Americans before the talks. 'They come in shouting the high number, and all you have to do is hold your cool and they diminish as you push back,' a source said, describing the advice. The other tactic deployed by the Europeans was to woo Mr Trump with some large numbers presented to him on a single sheet of A4 paper. Eurocrats had used their build-up to prepare an offer on paper that the US president would see as a major victory. That was an offer to buy billions of dollars worth of American military technology – born out of Nato's recent decision to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The EU pledged to purchase $750bn (£565bn) worth of energy from the US over the next three years. And then there was a further promise that European companies would invest $600bn (£452bn) by 2028. These, European officials claim, are non-binding, not really worth the paper they were written on. The numbers were calculated using publicly available order information and information from trade associations. But this was enough to convince Mr Trump to settle at a tariff rate of 15 per cent, covering about 70 per cent of EU exports and totalling about €780bn (£588bn) worth of trade. In return, US imports into the EU will not face higher tariffs. 'This is probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade,' Mr Trump declared. 'It's a giant deal,' he added, referring to the $600bn and $750bn promises. 'That's going to be great.' The US president's claims of victory and the deal were met with derision in Europe. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, said the bloc hadn't been 'feared' enough in the talks, which opened the door to the concessions. François Bayrou, Macron's prime minister, described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and accused the Commission of bowing to American pressure. Michel Barnier, the EU's former Brexit negotiator, said accepting tariffs was an 'admission of weakness'. 'This weakness is not inevitable. It results from poor choices that ensure neither the sovereignty nor the prosperity of the continent and its states,' he wrote on social media. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, meanwhile said it would cause 'considerable damage' to his country's economy, the largest in the Eurozone. In comparison, Britain had negotiated a tariff rate of 10 per cent, five less than the EU, in its own deal with Washington. This was hailed by Brexiteers as evidence that leaving the bloc was the right thing to do. Paris and Berlin had been the two capitals pushing hardest for the bloc to take a more robust stance in the trade talks. The French had especially pushed for a package of €93bn (£81bn) of retaliatory tariffs to be unleashed to bring Mr Trump and Washington to heel. There were also calls from Paris to clamp down on American tech firms doing business in Europe. 'This was a big red button nobody was willing to push,' an EU diplomat told The Telegraph, spelling out fears that Europe's economy is reliant on American payment services. But Mrs von der Leyen, who was particularly dovish, argued that this would spill over into other sectors and potentially spell an end to what is a crucial alliance for Europe, especially in security. Fears that the White House and Pentagon would withdraw security guarantees for Europe and cut off weapons supplies to Ukraine overshadowed the talks. But the commission president and her top officials also steeled member states for a longer-term game. Devil in the detail Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, said: 'The only way I can explain to myself why the EU commission would choose to humiliate Europe by accepting the 15 per cent tariff is that they hope to appease Trump enough for him to maintain US security commitments in Europe.' Now Mr Trump has his victory, the devil would be in the detail as the terms are finalised, Mrs von der Leyen's team told member states. The commission will be looking to quietly enlarge a list of products that are exempted from tariffs in more technical talks with Washington. Eurocrats are already briefing that Britain's deal, despite having a lower tariff rate, doesn't protect key European industries, such as beef farmers.
