Latest news with #Hague-based
The Wire
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
International Court of Justice Takes Aim at Fossil Fuels in Sweeping Ruling
The International Court of Justice's first-ever advisory opinion on climate change contained a particularly strong position on fossil fuels that surprised even veteran observers of environmental law. The Hague-based court declared that states had an obligation under international law to address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change, a decision hailed as a milestone by small islands most at risk. The unanimous decision went further than expected, with the court spelling out what responsibility states have to protect the climate from planet-warming emissions from burning fossil fuels. Failing to prevent this harm "including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act" by that state, the court added. "It's really significant," said Sophie Marjanac, an international climate lawyer and director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, a campaign group. "It goes further than I expected, and it really makes some pretty groundbreaking findings," she told AFP. ICJ advisory opinions are not legally enforceable, but such opinions are rare, and seen as highly authoritative in steering national courts, legislation and corporate behaviour around the globe. Litigation against fossil fuel projects is growing, but so too are legal challenges by states and companies using the courts to block or unwind action on climate change. Legal Risks Jorge Vinuales, who helped draft the request for the court's opinion, said the fossil fuels language in the final opinion "went as far as one could expect the court to go, which is no small feat". He said this interpretation of liability for climate harm would probably be picked up in domestic and global courtrooms. "If so, it could have far-reaching effects," Vinuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge, told AFP. Fossil fuel companies and oil- and gas-producing nations could ignore the ICJ "but that raises legal and litigations risks of its own", he added. Its opinion could be used in a lawsuit against expanding a coal mine, a private dispute between an investor and a state, or a contract negotiation involving a fossil fuel financier, said Marjanac. "It could come up in all sorts of ways, all over the place. The influence is unlimited, really," she said. This could particularly be the case in countries that can adopt international law directly into their constitutions and legal frameworks, though this would depend on national context and take time to trickle down. In these countries, which include France, Mexico and the Netherlands, courts may have to take the ICJ opinion into account when hearing a case against an oil and gas venture. Even in so-called "dualist states" where international law is not automatically incorporated, constitutional courts and other national legislatures often respected and adopted aspects of ICJ opinion, experts said. The ruling "opens the door to challenges to new fossil fuel project approvals and licensing," said Marjanac, and "makes the operating environment much more difficult" for oil and gas majors. Line of Defence The court also "provided stricter measures surrounding the business of fossil fuels" and underscored that governments could not avoid blame for polluting companies within their jurisdiction, said Joy Reyes from the London School of Economics. "Countries will have to be more circumspect when it comes to licensing permits and broader policies around fossil fuels, because it may open them up to liability in the future," Reyes, a climate litigation specialist, told AFP. It could also empower smaller states to pursue compensation from big polluters, and give countries threatened with legal action by fossil fuel companies a stronger line of defence. And it could be harder now for oil and gas companies "to claim they have a legitimate expectation to be able to operate a fossil fuel project without impediment," Lorenzo Cotula, an international legal expert, told AFP. "It's now clear that states have a legal duty to take action in this space, and if they're able to articulate this in possible proceedings, I think that will be a strong legal argument to make," said Cotula, from research institute IIED.
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why ICJ ruling on climate change is significant
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark ruling on Wednesday that can breathe new life into the climate movement, and potentially open the floodgates for litigation seeking greater accountability from countries on climate action. The Hague-based court, which is the main judicial branch of the United Nations, has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and could be held liable to pay compensation if they failed to do so. The ruling has come in the form of an advisory opinion of the court, and does not on its own impact any country immediately. It can nonetheless have significant implications for the global fight against climate change. By making it clear that climate action is not just a policy imperative for countries but a legally-binding commitment under international law, the ruling strengthens the position of developing countries and everyone else advocating enhanced climate action from the rich and industrialised world. The ruling was delivered in a case resulting from a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in March 2022, seeking the advisory opinion of the court on climate change. The UNGA wanted the ICJ to address two very specific questions: (i) what are the obligations of countries under international law to protect the climate system and, (ii) what are the legal consequences for countries that do not fulfil their obligations. The court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. These include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1987 Montreal Protocol for protecting ozone, the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity and the 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification. The court concluded that climate action was not a matter of choice or preference, but a legal obligation: countries were obligated to take measures that contributed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, rich and industrialised countries in Annexure I of the UNFCCC had an obligation to take the lead on emissions reduction, and facilitate technology and financial transfers to developing countries. It identified several other obligations of countries, and said that failure to fulfil them would constitute 'an internationally wrongful act' which could have legal consequences. These could include being held liable to provide full reparation to countries that suffer on account of climate disasters, or other impacts of climate change. Countries could be held liable even for the irresponsible actions of private businesses or corporations, if they had failed to exercise due diligence and not taken adequate regulatory or legislative measures to prevent the irresponsible behaviour of private actors, the court held. The advisory opinion of the ICJ is not international law, and it is not binding on countries. However, it is the most authoritative interpretation of international law on the subject, and it is likely to be relied upon by courts around the world in deciding matters that come before them. This ruling is expected to put the spotlight back on climate change. In recent years, progress on the global fight against climate change has been severely undermined by the lack of adequate action by countries, particularly those in the developed world. The emissions reduction targets for 2030 will almost certainly be missed. The withdrawal of the US, the world's biggest historical emitter and a major laggard nation on climate action, from the Paris Agreement has put a question mark on the future of cooperative global action on climate. The credibility of international climate negotiations is at stake, with developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, very upset over their concerns being ignored. The ICJ's advisory opinion does not directly set right any of these. Several parts of the ruling could be difficult or impractical to implement, and these are likely to be hotly contested in courts. What the opinion has done though, is to reaffirm the legal sanctity of the provisions and principles mentioned in international laws on climate change, and declared that non-adherence to these could be reason to impose penalties on countries. This is important because the climate actions mandated under the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement are, barring a few, largely suggestive in nature, and there are no consequences for countries for non-compliance. For example, the US suffered no consequences for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and the developed countries as a whole got away with not meeting their finance obligations. Most developed countries did not meet their emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol either, and some of them walked out of the treaty — again without any consequences. The ICJ has not spelt out the consequences for any of these countries. That will be for other courts to decide, if any such matter comes before them. The ICJ's opinion that countries that suffer from climate impacts — it calls them 'injured states' — are entitled not just to compensation, but full reparation, is a major development. Developed nations reluctantly acknowledge that small and vulnerable countries require assistance, financial and otherwise, to deal with climate disasters, but reject any suggestion of liability, compensation, or reparations. With this, the ICJ has strongly endorsed the concept of loss and damage in climate laws, which call upon developed countries to take the lead in raising financial and other support to help countries recover from impacts of climate change. This is likely to trigger a wave of litigation seeking compensation from the developed countries. Corporate polluters too are likely to be taken to court. The advisory opinion is likely to be contested — and not just by the developed world. For example, the ICJ has opined that merely initiating some climate actions is not sufficient compliance with the obligations of countries— the scale or magnitude of these actions is open to scrutiny. However, under the Paris Agreement, countries are free to decide their climate actions, and the only requirement is that every subsequent set of actions must be a progression on the previous ones. There is no provision to ascertain the sufficiency of a country's climate action, or the lack thereof. The actual impact of the ruling will become evident only when it begins to be cited as precedent in individual cases on climate-related disputes, and from the treatment that it receives from governments.
France 24
5 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
Top court takes aim at fossil fuels in sweeping ruling
The International Court of Justice's first-ever advisory opinion on climate change contained a particularly strong position on fossil fuels that surprised even veteran observers of environmental law. The Hague-based court declared that states had an obligation under international law to address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change, a decision hailed as a milestone by small islands most at risk. The unanimous decision went further than expected, with the court spelling out what responsibility states have to protect the climate from planet-warming emissions from burning fossil fuels. Failing to prevent this harm "including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies -- may constitute an internationally wrongful act" by that state, the court added. "It's really significant," said Sophie Marjanac, an international climate lawyer and director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, a campaign group. "It goes further than I expected, and it really makes some pretty groundbreaking findings," she told AFP. ICJ advisory opinions are not legally enforceable, but such opinions are rare, and seen as highly authoritative in steering national courts, legislation and corporate behaviour around the globe. Litigation against fossil fuel projects is growing, but so too are legal challenges by states and companies using the courts to block or unwind action on climate change. - Legal risks - Jorge Vinuales, who helped draft the request for the court's opinion, said the fossil fuels language in the final opinion "went as far as one could expect the court to go, which is no small feat". He said this interpretation of liability for climate harm would probably be picked up in domestic and global courtrooms. "If so, it could have far-reaching effects," Vinuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge, told AFP. Fossil fuel companies and oil- and gas-producing nations could ignore the ICJ "but that raises legal and litigations risks of its own", he added. Its opinion could be used in a lawsuit against expanding a coal mine, a private dispute between an investor and a state, or a contract negotiation involving a fossil fuel financier, said Marjanac. "It could come up in all sorts of ways, all over the place. The influence is unlimited, really," she said. This could particularly be the case in countries that can adopt international law directly into their constitutions and legal frameworks, though this would depend on national context and take time to trickle down. In these countries, which include France, Mexico, and the Netherlands, courts may have to take the ICJ opinion into account when hearing a case against an oil and gas venture. Even in so-called "dualist states" where international law is not automatically incorporated, constitutional courts and other national legislatures often respected and adopted aspects of ICJ opinion, experts said. The ruling "opens the door to challenges to new fossil fuel project approvals and licensing," said Marjanac, and "makes the operating environment much more difficult" for oil and gas majors. Line of defence The court also "provided stricter measures surrounding the business of fossil fuels" and underscored that governments could not avoid blame for polluting companies within their jurisdiction, said Joy Reyes from the London School of Economics. "Countries will have to be more circumspect when it comes to licensing permits and broader policies around fossil fuels, because it may open them up to liability in the future," Reyes, a climate litigation specialist, told AFP. It could also empower smaller states to pursue compensation from big polluters, and give countries threatened with legal action by fossil fuel companies a stronger line of defence. And it could be harder now for oil and gas companies "to claim they have a legitimate expectation to be able to operate a fossil fuel project without impediment," Lorenzo Cotula, an international legal expert, told AFP. "It's now clear that states have a legal duty to take action in this space, and if they're able to articulate this in possible proceedings, I think that will be a strong legal argument to make," said Cotula, from research institute IIED.
Leaders
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Leaders
ICC Declines Israel's Bid to Halt Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) decisively rejected Israel's request to withdraw arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on Wednesday. This decision comes as the ICC reviews Israeli challenges regarding its jurisdiction over the Gaza war. Furthermore, judges also dismissed Israel's request to suspend the broader investigation into alleged atrocity crimes in the Palestinian Territories, with their decision published on the ICC's official website Warrants Remain Amid Jurisdiction Dispute The ICC issued arrest warrants on 21 November for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri, citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. However, in February, the ICC withdrew the warrant for al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, citing credible reports of his death. Israel continues to reject the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court and denies committing war crimes in Gaza. The country has conducted a military campaign aimed at eliminating Hamas since the deadly attack by the militant Palestinian group on 7 October, 2023. Israel is actively contesting the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. Israel argues that an appeals chamber decision in April, which ordered the pre-trial chamber to review its objections to the court's jurisdiction, invalidates the warrants. However, the judges deemed this reasoning incorrect. They stated on Wednesday that Israel's jurisdictional challenge to the arrest warrants remains pending. Consequently, the warrants will stay in effect until the court specifically rules on this issue. Future Implications Currently, there is no timeline for a ruling on jurisdiction in this case. In June, the United States imposed sanctions on four ICC judges, marking an unprecedented retaliation for the court's issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Notably, two of the sanctioned judges participated in the panel that ruled against Israel's request to withdraw the warrants. The ICC's defiance of Israeli and U.S. pressure underscores the court's resolve to hold leaders accountable, even as the case amplifies debates over its authority. With no end in sight, the ruling keeps the Gaza conflict—and its global repercussions—in the judicial spotlight. Short link : Post Views: 63
Filipino Times
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Filipino Times
ICC rejects Israel's request to withdraw arrest warrants for Netanyahu
Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected Israel's request to withdraw arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Wednesday. The decision, published on the ICC's website, also dismissed Israel's request to suspend the wider investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Palestinian Territories. Arrest warrants were issued on November 21, 2023, for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri in connection with the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The court later canceled the warrant for al-Masri in February after receiving credible reports of his death. Israel has rejected the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court and denies committing war crimes in Gaza, where it has been conducting military operations since a Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023. It has argued that an April ruling by the ICC's appeals chamber, ordering a review of its jurisdictional objections, renders the arrest warrants invalid. However, ICC judges said that the jurisdictional challenge is still pending and that the arrest warrants will remain in effect until a final decision is made. The court has not set a timeline for its ruling on the matter. In June, the United States imposed sanctions on four ICC judges in response to the court's decision to issue a warrant for Netanyahu. Two of the sanctioned judges were part of the panel that rejected Israel's latest request.
