ICJ Climate Change Opinion Raises Constitutionality Question Of U.S. Joining Paris Agreement
Since 2015, conservatives and legal experts have questioned the legality of the United States joining the Paris Agreement without Senate approval. Both President Obama and President Biden justified sidestepping the constitutional requirement by claiming the document was not a treaty and did not bind the U.S. to any 'course of action.' However, a recent opinion by the International Court of Justice found that the agreement not only creates legal requirements, but also legal liability for countries that signed the treaty. This poses unique legal questions as to whether the U.S. ever legally joined the treaty and if the next Democrat President can rejoin it without Senate approval.
The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 to address the impacts of climate change. The agreement sets a goal of reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. To reach that goal, a series of policies were adopted to address how governments and businesses reduce and report GHG emissions. It also focused on funding of both climate change initiatives and the economic impacts of climate change.
Within the U.S., the nature of the Paris Agreement has been debated. It has been a matter of dispute as to whether it is a treaty or an executive agreement. The differentiation is important.
Under the Constitution, the President 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.' However, the President can enter into 'executive agreements' that do not require approval of the Senate. While there are a lot of nuances to the difference, generally, a treaty is legally binding and could require the U.S. to change national law. Executive agreements are limited.
Even prior to adoption, President Obama asserted that the obligations of the agreement are aspirational, not legally binding. As a result, his administration believed it did not require Senate approval. This same rationale was used by President Biden when he rejoined the agreement after President Trump exited it. These arguments were echoed by Biden attorneys in a recent case before the International Court of Justice.
On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the United Nations General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court.
The UNGA posed two questions to the ICJ:Developing countries asserted that the Paris Agreement created a legal liability for countries to meet the goal of net zero by 2050. They also argued that countries who contribute to climate change, through the production of fossil fuels and GHG emissions, should pay reparations to low lying and developing nations that are 'adversely impacted' by climate change.
Much of the legal debate comes from the obligations states have under the Paris Agreement to submit reports to the UN. Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Agreement requires countries to 'prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.'
These NDCs outline actions taken by the the countries to reduce GHG emission. Throughout the legal proceedings, this process was referred to as procedural, meaning that countries are only required to go through the process of creating the report. The debate arose over whether there is a substantive, or actual action, required to enact the goals of the NDC. A substantive requirement creates a legal liability to act and could lead to legal consequences for failure to act.
In its oral statement before the Court in December, attorneys for the U.S. stated,
The Court disagreed.
Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The opinion created a new wave of liability for countries to address climate change, both within and beyond the confines of the Paris Agreement.
Looking specifically at the Paris Agreement, the Court found that the NDCs were legally binding.
Importantly, the Court also found that the NDCs require countries to change their domestic policy to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
In other words, the ICJ believes the Paris Agreement creates legal obligations for countries to act and to change national law to align with those goals. The opinion, while not legally binding, creates a strong legal argument that the Paris Agreement required Senate approval.
For all sides of the debate, the ICJ opinion is a mixed bag. For climate change advocates, the establishment of a new legal liability for failing to take action to reduce the impacts of climate change is a huge win. How that will be applied to the U.S. is still unclear. For opponents of the Paris Agreement, the new legal argument that it is legally binding, and therefore would require Senate approval, could invalidate the previous ratifications and prevent the next Democrat President from rejoining the treaty. Ultimately, both issues will be decided in court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Putin's ‘secret daughter' laments father who killed ‘millions' and ‘destroyed' her life as she pivots to support Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin's alleged secret daughter spoke out against her father in a cryptic post condemning the man who 'destroyed' her and 'took millions of lives.' Elizaveta Krivonogikh, a 22-year-old art school graduate living in Paris who is believed to Putin's youngest daughter, shared the messages on her private Telegram, in line with her increasing openness on Instagram as she's started to share more images of herself. 4 22-year-old Elizaveta Krivonogoikh is supposedly Vladimir Putin's secret love child. social media Advertisement 'It's liberating to be able to show my face to the world again,' she wrote, Bild reported. 'It reminds me of who I am and who destroyed my life,' she added. The Telegram chat, dubbed 'Art of Luiza,' references her work pseudonym Luiza Rozova. Advertisement Krivonogikh didn't explicitly name Putin in either post, but has also never shot down the popular theories surrounding her true parentage. The budding artist was born in 2003 after a suspected affair between Putin and her mother, Svetlana, the president's then-housekeeper. 4 Putin has never confirmed the rumored love child. POOL/AFP via Getty Images The bombshell was first revealed after a 2020 investigation by Russian media outlet Proekt, citing her 'phenomenal resemblance' to Putin. He isn't listed on her birth certificate, but 'Vladimirovna' was included, translating to 'daughter of Vladimir.' Advertisement In 2021, slain journalist and Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny exposed Krivonogikh's Instagram, which highlighted her life of luxury and her family's staggering wealth that many have attributed to their connection with the disgraced Russian president. 4 Krivonogikh returned to social media and slammed her rumored father. Instagram / luizaroz__ While Krivonogikh originally celebrated life in the spotlight, she retreated after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2021 and her Instagram was suddenly shut down. She's since returned, but was more reserved at first, hiding her face in many photos. She's now seemingly changed her tune — and swapped sides on the devastating war after previously mourning her inability to 'make an extra lap around my beloved St. Petersburg.' Advertisement Krivonogikh has since denounced her previous Gucci-encrusted lifestyle of obscene wealth and speaks openly against her supposed father's massacre in Ukraine while working in a Parisian art gallery specializing in anti-war works. 4 Krivonogikh also denounced Putin's invasion of Ukraine. AP Krivonogikh also adopted an extra pseudonym, Elizaveta Rudnova, inspired by Putin's late ally Oleg Rudnov — a cheeky stab at her elusive parentage. Still, critics of Putin haven't quite bought her reshaped image and insist that she shouldn't be working in a space where she could be interacting with Ukrainians, regardless of her stance. 'Am I really responsible for the activities of my family, who can't even hear me?' Krivonogikh wrote. Putin is also rumored to share two secret sons, a 10-year-old and a 6-year-old, with his former gymnast fling and Olympic gold medalist Alina Kabaeva.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Decision time as plastic pollution treaty talks begin
Countries were to start the clock Tuesday on 10 days of talks aimed at hammering out a landmark global treaty on combating the scourge of plastic pollution. Three years of negotiations hit the wall in South Korea in December when a group of oil-producing states blocked a consensus. Since the failure in Busan, countries have been working behind the scenes and are giving it another go in Geneva, in talks at the United Nations. Key figures steering the negotiations said they were not expecting an easy ride this time round, but insisted a deal remained within reach. "There's been extensive diplomacy from Busan till now," UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen told AFP. UNEP is hosting the talks, and Andersen said conversations across, between and among different regions and interest groups had generated momentum. "Most countries, actually, that I have spoken with have said: 'We're coming to Geneva to strike the deal'. "Will it be easy? No. Will it be straightforward? No. Is there a pathway for a deal? Absolutely." - Human bodies riddled - Plastic pollution is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body. In 2022, countries agreed they would find a way to address the crisis by the end of 2024. However, the supposedly final round of negotiations on a legally-binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the seas, flopped in Busan. One group of countries sought an ambitious deal to limit production and phase out harmful chemicals. But a clutch of mostly oil-producing nations rejected production limits and wanted to focus more narrowly on treating waste. Ecuadoran diplomat Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chairing the talks process, said an effective, fair and ambitious agreement was now within reach. "Our paths and positions might differ; our destination is the same," he said Monday. "We are all here because we believe in a shared cause: a world free of plastic pollution." - 'Plastic-free future' - More than 600 non-governmental organisations are attending the Geneva talks. Valdivieso said lessons had been learned from Busan, and NGOs and civil society would now have access to the discussions tackling the thorniest points, such as banning certain chemicals and capping production. "To solve the plastic pollution crisis, we have to stop making so much plastic," Greenpeace delegation chief Graham Forbes told AFP. The group and its allies want a treaty "that cuts plastic production, eliminates toxic chemicals, and provides the financing that's going to be required to transition to a fossil fuel, plastic-free future", he said. "The fossil fuel industry is here in force," he noted, adding: "We cannot let a few countries determine humanity's future when it comes to plastic pollution." - Dumped, burned and trashed - Well over 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced globally each year, half of which is for single-use items. While 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, only nine percent is actually recycled. Nearly half, 46 percent, ends up in landfills, while 17 percent is incinerated and 22 percent is mismanaged and becomes litter. A report in The Lancet medical journal warned Monday that plastic pollution was a "grave, growing and under-recognised danger" to health, costing the world at least $1.5 trillion a year in health-related economic losses. The new review of existing evidence, conducted by leading health researchers and doctors, compared plastic to air pollution and lead, saying its impact on health could be mitigated by laws and policies. To hammer home the message, a replica outside the UN of Auguste Rodin's famous sculpture "The Thinker" will be slowly submerged in mounting plastic rubbish during the talks. The artwork, entitled "The Thinker's Burden", is being constructed by the Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong. "If you want to protect health, then we need to think about the toxic chemicals that are entering our environment," he told AFP. But Matthew Kastner, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said the plastics industry and the products it makes were "vital to public health", notably through medical devices, surgical masks, child safety seats, helmets and pipes delivering clean water. rjm-im-bur/gv/tc
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Democrats disagree (again). This time, it's about school vouchers.
States will have the ability to opt in or out, presenting Democratic governors with a difficult decision, and one that competing advocacy groups are trying to influence. Democrats for Education Reform, a group closely affiliated with veterans of the Obama administration, has become a leading voice urging the party to cross what has long been a red line, and embrace some forms of private school choice — including the Trump program. The group has prominent allies, including Arne Duncan, who served as secretary of education under President Obama. Duncan is working for the group as a consultant. But the group's new stance in favor of vouchers is provocative within the party — so much so that two former leaders of the organization have quit and are creating a rival group that will oppose vouchers, while supporting other forms of school choice. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's private school choice program is funded by a federal tax credit, and will offer families of most income levels scholarships that can be used for private school tuition, tutoring or other education expenses. Advertisement The group's chief executive, Jorge Elorza, a former mayor of Providence, has argued vouchers are popular with many of the working-class Black and Latino voters who tilted toward Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and whom Democrats are desperate to win back. Advertisement This past weekend, Elorza traveled to a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Madison, Wisc., to make his case. He has been pointing to a provision in Trump's budget bill that will potentially allow the voucher dollars to be spent on not only private school tuition, but also tutoring or exam fees for students enrolled in traditional public schools. He called opting into the program 'a no-brainer.' 'This is literally free money,' he said, 'that is broadly supported by the majority of voters who have steadily drifted away from the party. It just makes sense.' It could be difficult to convince Democratic governors. Many are closely allied to teachers unions, which have resisted vouchers for decades. The unions argue vouchers leech students and dollars from public education. 'Vouchers are a vehicle to abandon public education,' said Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation's second-largest teachers' union. In line with the unions, many Democratic politicians have focused their arguments on protecting public school funding. They are also intent on fighting Trump's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and end racial equity efforts. In a sign of just how fractured Democrats are, a third camp is emerging, situated somewhere between the reform group and the unions. Two former staff members of the group are starting a political action committee and a think tank that will reject vouchers while continuing to push for the expansion of the public charter school sector — schools that are publicly funded, but independently run, and are typically not unionized. The groups will also support other ways for parents to exercise choice, such as making it easier for students to attend public schools outside of their residential zones, and they will push for all schools to be held accountable for student learning outcomes. The political action committee, the Center for Strong Public Schools Action Fund, will support candidates who align with those stances, especially in the South. Advertisement Alisha Thomas Searcy, one of the founders, previously served as the rerform group's regional president for the South, and is a former Georgia Democratic state legislator and charter school executive. Her partner in the new venture, Garry Jones, previously served as the group's political director in Texas. Searcy and Jones split with the group after experiencing legislative battles over private school choice in Georgia and Texas, which are among 18 Republican-leaning states that now offer education savings accounts. These accounts are a type of flexible private school voucher that allows parents to spend taxpayer dollars on private education, for-profit virtual learning, tutoring and homeschooling. Searcy declined to name the funders of the new political action group and think tank. She said they will offer 'a bold, clear vision as Democrats, to show that we are the party that protects public education from those privatization and other attacks, and demands that it work for every student.' Democrats who do support private school choice — including those in the coalition — are looking expectantly toward some of the younger moderate governors in the party, several of whom are being discussed as potential presidential candidates in 2028. Maryland Governor Wes Moore is one of them. In a statement, a spokesperson said the governor was still evaluating the new federal voucher program. A spokesperson for Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who has supported school choice in the past, said his administration was also reviewing the program, and pointed out that it does not go into effect until 2027. Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
