Top U.N. court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change.
"States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.
The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met."
"I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatuan Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out.
Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said, "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies.
"This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond."
Human right to clean environment
Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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.
Under international law, he said, "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second-biggest current emitter, behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.
Vanuatuan Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on Wednesday. |
AFP-JIJI
"As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the opinion.
With skepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion.
"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.
Historically, rich industrialized countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem.
Political and legal weight
The court's opinion is nonbinding, 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.
Harj Narulla, a barrister specializing in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued.
"These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said.
Two questions
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?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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.
The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above preindustrial 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
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
World court climate ruling: nonbinding but game changing
The world's top court may not be able to compel polluting states to halt planet-warming emissions, but experts say its momentous climate decision gives potent legal and political firepower to countries and campaigners on the front lines. An advisory opinion like the one issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week is not binding and so is not directly enforceable, but that does not mean it has no weight. By saying that all countries were firmly bound to a swathe of legal obligations under existing laws and treaties, experts say the ruling will influence courts, climate negotiations and policy decisions across the world. The ICJ "couldn't have been clearer" on the binding nature of a range of climate duties, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. He said the ruling, which was responding to questions on countries' climate responsibilities from the U.N. General Assembly, was "as strong as we could have imagined." "The consensus among the judges is fully behind the conclusion that international law establishes clear and binding obligations for states not to cause massive harm to the environment in general and not to harm the climate system in particular," he said. These included ensuring national climate plans reflect the highest possible ambition to stay within the Paris agreement's safer global warming cap of 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times — a level that the world could reach this decade. If those obligations are not met, the court said states may be obliged to repair damaged infrastructure or ecosystems — and if that is not possible, they could face compensation claims. This will ripple into future litigation, said Markus Gehring, professor of European and international law at the University of Cambridge. "We are a far cry from a contentious case between two countries, where someone is demanding liability for past and present climate change damage, but in theory, the court lays out an avenue towards such claims," he said. Major petrostates like the United States may take little heed of the court's warning that expanding production of oil, gas and coal could constitute an "internationally wrongful act." But Gehring said countries could choose to ignore ICJ advisory opinions "at their peril." He cited the court's 2019 advice that the United Kingdom should end its occupation of the Chagos islands. After Britain initially rejected the ruling, a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanded it cede the islands to Mauritius, which it eventually did in 2024. Gehring said that while the court's climate decision is not directly binding on individual states, it would be indirectly binding through subsequent domestic or international court action and through U.N. institutions. The move by U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris deal also would be unlikely to absolve the country from its duties, Gehring added, because the obligation to address climate change is now "crystal clear in international law." "So even leaving the Paris Agreement and the climate treaty regime does not eliminate those obligations," he said. ICJ judge Sarah Cleveland said countries' "significant responsibilities" to protect the climate system may also affect interpretation of international investment law. The ruling was "a decisive legal vindication" for Vanuatu — which spearheaded the push for an ICJ opinion — the country said in a legal analysis of the decision. The Pacific island nation, which is at risk from rising seas, said the court's conclusions would strengthen its hand in global climate negotiations, helping it demand greater climate ambition and attract financial support for countries suffering climate loss and damage. It could also open the way for legal action against countries and possibly companies that have by their actions and omissions caused climate harm, the statement said. "For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice," it added. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, former president of the U.N. COP20 climate conference in Peru and now WWF Global Climate and Energy lead, said he expects the ICJ ruling to "move the needle strongly." "The timing is so fantastic because we are in difficult times in the climate debate, so to have that opinion in the current time, it is showing that we should never lose our hope," he said.
The Diplomat
11 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Why Is Taiwan Supporting an Illegal Israeli Settlement in the Occupied West Bank?
Taiwan's decision to donate to a medical facility located in the illegal Israeli settlement of Sha'ar Binyamin in the occupied West Bank earlier this month sparked a firestorm of controversy. It marked the first time since late 2023 that a foreign state has made such a public display of providing direct financial support for a project inside an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. At first glance, Taiwan's aid may appear purely humanitarian. In March and May 2024, Taiwan's representative office in Israel donated NT$15.9 million (approximately US$500,000) to support medical patrols in Israeli cities and to provide basic humanitarian assistance – such as food, water, and shelter – through an NGO operating in Gaza. However, more recently, Taiwan became the first foreign government to provide funding for a medical center located within an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. A ceremonial event marking the donation took place in July 2025, attended by senior Israeli officials and Taiwan's representative in Israel who, by her very visit to an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, effectively recognized Israel's unlawful occupation. At a press conference on July 22, a spokesperson for Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that 'discussions about the donation were still ongoing and centered solely on humanitarian and medical cooperation.' The West Bank, where the settlement regional council of Binyamin is located, is an occupied territory under international law. The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which among other provisions protects civilian populations in occupied territory. These settlements thus constitute a war crime. The illegality of Israeli settlements has been reiterated by the United Nations, the European Union, and numerous international NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Most notably, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which in 2004 already found that Israeli settlements are contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, affirmed the illegality of Israel's occupation of the OPT in its July 2024 advisory opinion. The ICJ concluded that: [A]ll States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Support or aid to any infrastructure projects in the settlements, even under the guise of medical donations, contributes to the maintenance and entrenchment of unlawful Israeli occupation. Any support provided to Israeli settlements, including medical care, should also be seen in the context of Israel's decades-long systematic and institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians, including in access to healthcare, which has resulted in stark health inequalities between Palestinians and Israelis. Compounding this inequality are Israel's arbitrary restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, ability to access clinics and adequate healthcare. Just in recent months, Israeli authorities have repeatedly obstructed West Bank Palestinians' access to life-saving healthcare, at times with lethal consequences. When Taiwan chooses to fund projects that exclusively serve Israeli settlers – Palestinians are barred from living in Israeli settlements – it contributes to legitimizing and maintaining Israel's system of apartheid. This is not only a violation of international law, but also undermines Taiwan's own image as a democracy rooted in human rights and equality. The grim reality on the ground sharply contrasts with the statements of Taiwan's representative in Israel, Abby Ya-Ping Lee. At the event celebrating the medical center in the settlement, Lee said: 'We are pleased to expand this cooperation to the regional level, through initial work with a regional council to save lives and to ensure the right to health regardless of ethnicity, age, or gender.' The very settlement enterprise that this donation supports and empowers is rooted in national, racial and ethnic domination over Palestinians. Israeli authorities continue to systematically and deliberately destroy or damage the healthcare sector in Gaza and deny or obstruct the entry of essential medical provisions. Israel also adopts unlawful measures that result in the erosion of the Palestinian healthcare system in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Taiwan must take a principled and rights-based approach – which would look like supporting Gaza's decimated healthcare system and Palestinian healthcare facilities facing severe challenges in the West Bank, rather than investing in infrastructure serving illegal settlements. Donations, even in the guise of humanitarian aid, to illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT only serve to make them sustainable, thus entrenching a violation of international law. Taiwan has long sought greater international recognition and has positioned itself as a defender of liberal values, democratic governance, and global solidarity. These aspirations should extend to its foreign aid strategy. If Taiwan is to be seen as a responsible and genuine global actor, it must ensure that its humanitarian assistance – especially in conflict zones – is neutral, impartial, transparent, and consistent with international legal norms. In conflict zones where aid is often politicized, humanitarian neutrality is not a luxury – it is a mandatory and an international obligation. Taiwan's well-intentioned support can have meaningful impact, but only if it is grounded in impartiality and a commitment to upholding international law. This is not just about diplomacy; it is about ensuring that Taiwan's actions abroad reflect the values it upholds at home and ensuring that it does not engage in actions that could risk Taiwan being complicit in Israel's violations of international law.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
Top U.N. court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change. In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law. The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control. Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met." "I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatuan Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out. Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said, "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice." U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond." Human right to clean environment Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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. Under international law, he said, "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second-biggest current emitter, behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations. Vanuatuan Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on Wednesday. | AFP-JIJI "As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the opinion. With skepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialized countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. Political and legal weight The court's opinion is nonbinding, 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. Harj Narulla, a barrister specializing in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. "These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said. Two questions 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? Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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. The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above preindustrial 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.
