Latest news with #ICJ
Qatar Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Politics
- Qatar Tribune
Countries must address climate change: ICJ
Agencies THE HAGUE The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries must address the 'urgent and existential threat' of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. 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 UN 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 UN 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.
Straits Times
43 minutes ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Brazil to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
Find out what's new on ST website and app. BRASILIA - Brazil is finalizing its submission to join South Africa's genocide case against Israel's actions in Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday. South Africa filed a case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas militants Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps, and shelters. Other countries – including Spain, Turkey, and Colombia – have also sought to join the case against Israel. In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law "such as the annexation of territories by force" and expressed "deep indignation" at violence suffered by the civilian population. Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention. The Israeli embassy in Brasilia did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision that "the breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy." Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Judge asks prosecution for more information on Kpods in first case involving etomidate-laced vapes World In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change threat Singapore 5 teens arrested for threatening boy with knife, 2 charged with causing hurt Singapore Male victim of fatal Toa Payoh fire was known to keep many things, say residents Sport Bukayo Saka the difference as Arsenal beat AC Milan at National Stadium Singapore HDB launches 10,209 BTO and balance flats, as priority scheme for singles kicks in Singapore Over 1.15 million Singaporeans aged 21 to 59 have claimed SG60 vouchers Singapore Cyclist charged after allegedly hitting elderly pedestrian, killing him Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel's ally the United States. The Trump administration announced 50% tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month. A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration told Reuters that Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will impact its relationship with Washington, however. The United States has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both former President Joe Biden and Trump. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case. REUTERS
Scoop
44 minutes ago
- Politics
- Scoop
World Court's Climate Ruling A Legal Warning Shot For Luxon
Greenpeace Aotearoa says the world's highest court has just delivered a wake-up call for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. In a historic climate ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has confirmed that governments have legal obligations to protect people - both now and in the future - from the worsening impacts of the climate crisis. That includes regulating big polluters like fossil fuel companies and intensive livestock operations. "This is a warning shot to Luxon that his Government's war on nature and the climate comes with consequences," says Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson. "The Court has made it clear: states must take action to prevent climate harm, no matter where it occurs. They must uphold people's fundamental right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment - for today's communities and future generations." The ICJ ruling goes beyond the Paris Agreement, reinforcing that governments have a duty to regulate climate pollution, cooperate internationally, and prevent environmental harm. It strengthens the legal grounds for climate-impacted communities to hold governments accountable. Since taking office, the Luxon Government has scrapped or weakened numerous key climate policies. It has: Overturned the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration Pledged to fast-track coal mining Shelved agricultural emissions pricing Exempted the country's worst climate polluter - intensive dairying - from meaningful accountability "Luxon is elevating the profits of polluters above people's fundamental human rights," says Larsson. "This ruling puts him - and governments like his - on notice." The dairy industry, led by Fonterra, is New Zealand's largest climate polluter. Yet under pressure from lobby groups, the Government has rolled back environmental safeguards and is now considering weakening methane targets - despite clear advice from the Climate Change Commission that action on methane must be strengthened. Earlier this year, Luxon received a letter authored by dozens of international climate scientists accusing him of ignoring scientific evidence on methane and urging him to follow the Climate Commission's advice to strengthen New Zealand's methane target. The letter was featured on the front page of the Financial Times. "New Zealand is the world's largest dairy exporter and a major player in the global livestock industry," says Larsson. "How New Zealand addresses livestock emissions sets an important precedent for the rest of the world. If Luxon guts the methane target, New Zealand risks breaching the Paris Agreement and, by extension, its trade agreements with partners like the UK and EU." The historic ICJ ruling is a result of action taken in 2019 by 27 law students from The University of the South Pacific. As the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, they campaigned for the ICJ to issue an Advisory Opinion on the responsibilities of States in respect to climate change. The resolution, put forward by Vanuatu alongside a global alliance of States, passed the United Nations General Assembly unanimously in March 2023, co-sponsored by over 130 countries. "As this ruling shows, the courts are becoming an increasingly important venue for climate justice - because governments like ours are failing to protect people and the planet. And when that happens, people will step up to defend their future."
ABC News
an hour ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Top court rules on obligation to fight climate change
The United Nations's top court has found countries that fail to take measures to prevent climate change, could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice's landmark ruling has paved the way for countries to sue each other over the impacts of climate change.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
UN court: Climate crisis is ‘existential threat'
UN court: Climate crisis is 'existential threat' NewsFeed The International Court of Justice says climate change is an 'urgent and existential threat' in its first-ever climate opinion, requested by the UN. Protesters gathered in The Hague as judges weighed whether major polluters should be held legally accountable for the damage. Video Duration 01 minutes 31 seconds 01:31 Video Duration 00 minutes 41 seconds 00:41 Video Duration 01 minutes 43 seconds 01:43 Video Duration 01 minutes 17 seconds 01:17 Video Duration 03 minutes 07 seconds 03:07 Video Duration 00 minutes 54 seconds 00:54 Video Duration 03 minutes 18 seconds 03:18
