International court will clarify countries' obligations and consequences for polluters
ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard.
Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are sufficient.
But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea.
Vanuatu urged judges to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so.
The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' Vanuatu said.
2 And the consequences?
This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions - if any - for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis?
The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage.
Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution.
Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects.
Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law - 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' - roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim.
In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition, and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations.
They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation.
They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change.
3 Harm or no harm?
Another key point is the issue of 'transboundary' law, often known as the 'no-harm' rule.
Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another.
The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change?
Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state.
Others say that climate change should not be an exception.
Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise.
4 When did they know?
A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet?
The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade.
Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s.
This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in.
5 'Future generations'
The concept of 'intergenerational equity' is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court.
'The impact of climate change is not bounded by time,' argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later.
But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law.
'Human beings alive now cannot claim rights on behalf of future generations,' argued Germany.
-Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Action Ban ‘Disturbing' Misuse Of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, Türk Warns
GENEVA (25 July 2025) – The UK Government's decision to proscribe the 'Palestine Action' protest group under terrorism legislation raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned today. The UK Government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 after some of its members broke into a military airfield in June and reportedly spray-painted two military aircraft, among other incidents of property damage. 'UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,' said Türk. 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' The ban, among other things, makes it a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, express support for the group, or wear an item of clothing that would arouse 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is a member of or supports the organization. Such conduct is punishable by criminal penalties, including fines and prison sentences of up to 14 years. 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' the High Commissioner said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effect on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people,' he added. Since the UK Government's ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests. 'I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards,' the High Commissioner said.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Israel allows aid airdrops to Gaza as famine looms
Israel has said it would allow food to be airdropped to Gaza and designate humanitarian corridors for UN aid convoys, as thousands of Palestinians face the threat of widespread famine. Before Israel announced that the flights would resume, the United Arab Emirates had said it would restart aid drops and
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Urge Brazil To Halt Serious Regression On Environmental Licensing
UN human rights experts* today expressed grave concern over Brazil's General Environmental Licensing Bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 17 July and by the Senate last May. The law is pending presidential enactment. 'The bill introduces significant regressions to Brazil's environmental licensing system and threatens the human rights to life, health, an adequate standard of living, and a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment,' the experts said. The approved licensing bill PL No. 2159/2021 includes measures such as simplified environmental licensing through developers' self-declarations and automatic renewal of permits. Several activities would also be exempt from licensing despite potentially severe environmental and human rights impacts, including industrial agriculture and energy-related infrastructure. 'These changes risk exacerbating the planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, toxic pollution, and worsening inequalities. They would also weaken the rights to access to information, public participation, and access to justice, particularly for marginalised peoples and groups,' the experts said. They stressed that the licensing amendments would disproportionately affect Indigenous Peoples, and Quilombola Afro-descendant communities, who are already severely impacted by environmental and climate harms, violating Brazil's obligations of non-discrimination. 'While procedural efficiency in environmental licensing is important, it must not be achieved at the expense of effective regulations, controls and monitoring, and accountability, and human rights and environmental protections,' the experts said. They noted that Brazil's obligations to prevent significant environmental harm by public and private actors, including to prevent transboundary environmental harm, encompasses conducting comprehensive and integral environmental, social and human rights impact assessments before authorising any activity that threatens human rights or the environment. 'This legislative rollback contradicts Brazil's international legal obligations,' the experts said. 'It is paradoxical that this law might be enacted shortly after historic Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which clarified States' obligations to adopt all necessary measures to respond to the climate emergency and prevent harm by all actors, including effective regulation and supervision relating to fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation.' The experts reaffirmed that the principle of non-regression is fundamental to international human rights and environmental law, requiring States to refrain from weakening existing legal protections. 'As the ICJ and the IACtHR underscored, States have an enhanced due diligence obligation to protect the climate system and the environment on which all human rights depend, and must prevent irreversible harm to the climate and life-supporting systems,' they said. The experts warned that the bill would undermine Brazil's credibility as the host of the upcoming COP30, the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference in Belém. As a global climate leader, Brazil must ensure that its domestic legislation is aligned with its international commitments, including under the Paris Agreement. We call on President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to veto parts of the licensing bill that contradict Brazil's constitutional and international obligations. Protecting the environment is essential to safeguarding the rights and dignity of present and future generations. * Experts: Astrid Puentes Riaño, the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation ; Elisa Morgera, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change; Bina D'Costa, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Albert K. Barume, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Pichamon Yeophantong, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises
