Latest news with #ICJ
Bloomberg
36 minutes ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Zero: How Pacific Islands Took on Big Emitters and Won
In 2019, a group of law students from Pacific island nations set in motion a case that made it to the world's highest court: The International Court of Justice. The students wanted answers to two important questions: what responsibility do countries have to stop climate change? And if countries don't stop polluting, will they have to pay for the damages? Now the ICJ has delivered its verdict, and it seems like a huge win for the climate. But is it? Laura Clarke, chief executive officer of legal non-profit ClientEarth, joins Akshat Rathi on Zero to discuss.
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Politics
- Forbes
The World Court Rules On Fossil Fuels
TOPSHOT - Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (C) delivers a speech as he attends a ... More demonstration ahead of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) session tasked with issuing the first Advisory Opinion (AO) on States' legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on July 23, 2025. (Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP) (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague thrust itself into the energy/climate debate last week. Via a unanimous advisory opinion issued in connection with a complaint filed by the nation of Vanuatu, the ICJ ruled that government actions driving climate change are illegal and that states are legally obligated both to cut their emissions and to compensate nations that are at risk of the effects of climate change. Vanuatu, a tiny island nation in the Pacific, has warned that its entire land area may be swallowed up by predicted rising sea levels. Agreeing with Vanuatu's position, ICJ President Yuji Isawawa's written decision declared that climate change is an "urgent and existential threat of planetary proportions.' The sweeping ICJ ruling contains broad implications for the future of the fossil fuel industry and the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that it produces. Most significantly, "the Court reaffirmed that a state's failure to take appropriate measures to protect the climate system from GHGs—including via fossil fuel production, consumption, licensing, or subsidies—may amount to an internationally wrongful act (para. 427). Importantly, the wrongful act lies not in the emissions themselves, but in breaching the obligation to prevent significant climate harm." (Source). While countries like the United States, which are not members of the ICJ, likely will ignore what is only an advisory opinion even for ICJ members, one can still expect climate activists to attempt to use this opinion as dramatically as possible. Indeed, it is not out of the question to anticipate that activists will seek international arrest warrants for directors of fossil fuel companies, citing the ICJ opinion as their foundation despite its advisory nature. Regardless of the above, one likely result of this ruling will be to spread chaos in world energy supply and availability. Will Dutch energy companies like Shell and British energy companies like BP henceforth be allowed to continue operating at all? If so, under what future restrictions? As renewables like solar, wind, and geothermal constitute only a tiny part of world energy supply, does this opinion relegate poorer countries to perpetual poverty as they will now face almost guaranteed energy insecurity when heretofore conventional (i.e., fossil fuel) energy sources go away? Internally, certain nations already find themselves battered in two directions. Nowhere will that be truer than in Canada, where the western provinces are threatening "separation" over energy issues, yet new Prime Minister Marc Carney has demurred in allowing increased fossil fuel development to continue to occur. (Source). This ruling potentially now places Mr. Carney in an even deeper legal hole internationally, as he can either possibly tear his nation apart or face claims that he is purposely violating international law. (Source). While the ICJ ruling otherwise sounds commendable to those who claim their only goal is to save the planet, it nevertheless highlights the uneasy relationship between law and science that permeates the issue of climate change generally, and energy policy specifically. By seeking to discourage or eliminate fossil fuels altogether, the World Court is, in fact, forcing future international economic development to rely upon intermittent renewables at a time when the science is just not there, yet, for these sources alone, to propel the future world economy. The result could be both economic and environmental disaster in much of the developed world, as locals, stripped of their most reliable power source, may have no choice but to resort to things like deforestation and other environmentally destructive methods to provide the energy that they will need to survive. For the international environmental community, last week's ICJ ruling might turn out to be the ultimate example of "be careful what you wish for, you just may get it."
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
SA pushes for two-state solution in Palestine, peace must prevail'
Israel's closest ally, the United States, was absent from the conference. South Africa has reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, which has dominated the Middle East. International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola, speaking at the United Nations International Conference on Tuesday, emphasised that discussions on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine are crucial. Lasting peace 'This conference takes place at a time when we are witnessing the destruction of Gaza and its people in real time, in a brazen and wanton act of genocide in full view of the world,' Lamola said 'Despite this challenging context, in which the international legal and multilateral system has been paralysed and turned into a blunt tool, the focus today on a real path to lasting peace must prevail. 'The might is right doctrine can no longer be justified. It has led to perpetual insecurity, and it justifies an attempt to eradicate the Palestinian people through killing and starvation,' Lamola said. ALSO READ: Trump contradicts Netanyahu, Palestinians in Gaza facing 'real starvation' [VIDEO] Palestinian statehood During the conference, which was not attended by Israel's closest ally, the United States, Lamola said South Africa is 'anti-war and prefers dialogue over violence'. He stressed the following points as fundamental to restoring the credibility of the two-state solution. 'All states must urgently recognise Palestinian statehood, and the territorial integrity and contiguity of Palestine should be established and respected. In this regard, South Africa welcomes the intentions of recognition of the State of Palestine by France as an important step towards achieving a two-state solution.' Lamola stressed that there cannot be peace while the very existence of the Palestinian people is being threatened by Israel's continued genocidal actions in Gaza and the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank. 'This is part of a systematic pattern of injustices and oppression of Palestinians since the adoption of Resolution 181 and the subsequent Nakba in 1948. These actions must be condemned, and the UN Security Council must act to protect the Palestinian people in whole and in part.' South Africa is anti-war and prefers dialogue over violence. Global attention is on this Conference. There is an expectation that we will deliver an effective response to the destruction of an entire population and a peaceful path for preserving the prospect of a viable… — Minister: International Relations and Cooperation (@RonaldLamola) July 29, 2025 ALSO READ: Israel accused of starving Gaza 'by design' — South Africa addresses ICJ Two-state solution Thirdly, he said, preserving the viability of the two-state solution must include promoting safeguards such as the full respect for international law, including international humanitarian law, and human rights law. 'It is necessary for the immediate and full implementation of resolutions of the United Nations and the Provisional measures, as well as Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice.' Lamola reiterated that not only Israel, but all states, must comply with the collective obligations under international law. 'We all have a duty to preserve the sanctity of international law and ensure accountability. It's against this backdrop that we have seen the establishment of The Hague Group, and the recent meeting of the Madrid Group to elevate the primacy of international law, promote accountability and ensure a just peace.' Obstacles Lamola added that all obstacles to the two-state solution should be removed. 'The halting of illegal Israeli settlement expansion, the removal of the illegal separation wall cutting across the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the resumption of all internationally reputable humanitarian relief efforts and the reconstruction of Gaza, which of course can only take place once there is peace.' Reminder Lamola reminded his counterparts that global attention was on this Conference. 'There is an expectation that we will deliver an effective response to the destruction of an entire population and a peaceful path for preserving the prospect of a viable Palestinian State existing side by side with the State of Israel in peace and security. 'This expectation is not misplaced, and it could not be higher. Eighty years since the founding of the United Nations, this is a matter that has plagued our collective conscience. The solution lies with a tangible re-commitment from all of us to the values that bind us,' Lamola said. UK to recognise Palestine On Tuesday, the British prime minister announced that the UK would recognise a Palestinian state should Israel not agree to a Gaza ceasefire by September. 'I have always said that we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution,' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a press briefing after a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. 'I can confirm the UK will recognise the State of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.' France France commended Starmer's announcement on Tuesday, with the country's Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot saying the UK 'joins today in the momentum created by France for the recognition of the State of Palestine.' Israel's foreign ministry said the move harms efforts to implement a ceasefire in Gaza and release the remaining hostages held in the territory. ALSO READ: Israeli strikes kill children collecting water in Gaza
The South African
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The South African
Donald Trump hints at skipping G20 summit in South Africa
US President Donald Trump has hinted that he may not attend the G20 leaders' summit in South Africa this November, citing continued dissatisfaction with the country's domestic and international policies. 'I think maybe I'll send somebody else because I've had a lot of problems with South Africa. They have some very bad policies,' Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday. The summit, scheduled to take place under South Africa's G20 presidency, is expected to be a key global diplomatic event. However, Trump's comments add fuel to already tense US-South Africa relations. Trump's criticism comes on the back of several contentious issues: South Africa's land reform policies : Trump has previously accused South Africa of land seizures and 'white genocide,' though these claims have been widely discredited. : Trump has previously accused South Africa of land seizures and 'white genocide,' though these claims have been widely discredited. International litigation : The US has opposed South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) , where Pretoria accused Israel of genocide over its actions in Gaza. : The US has opposed South Africa's case at the , where Pretoria accused over its actions in Gaza. Economic friction : In February, Trump signed an executive order slashing US financial aid to South Africa , criticising the country's Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) laws as discriminatory. : In February, Trump signed an executive order slashing , criticising the country's laws as discriminatory. Diplomatic boycotts: Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio boycotted a G20 foreign ministers' meeting hosted in South Africa. The ongoing Gaza conflict – which has left tens of thousands dead, displaced millions, and led to accusations of war crimes – has further divided Washington and Pretoria. South Africa continues to press its genocide case against Israel, a close US ally. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has dismissed Trump's accusations, defending the country's land and economic policies as legitimate redress of historical injustices. He has urged Trump to attend the G20 summit, framing it as an opportunity for dialogue and diplomacy. If Trump follows through on skipping the summit, it would mark a major diplomatic snub, especially given South Africa's role as the current G20 chair. It remains to be seen who the US might send in his place. Analysts suggest Trump's decision could further deepen geopolitical divisions within the G20 and complicate discussions on global cooperation – particularly on issues of trade, security, and climate change. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Chagos Archipelago residents deserve reparations, not regrets
The Chagossian people remain forcibly and criminally displaced from their homeland. Photo: Andrew Winning/Reuters The agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, has been described by its prime minister as a 'victory for international law, for postcolonial justice and above all, for the Chagossian people'. But is it? Implementing international law in situations of colonial atrocities means more than resolution of territorial disputes; it means delivering justice and reparations to affected peoples. The Chagossian people remain forcibly and criminally displaced from their homeland. All governments, including South Africa, need to ensure that the UK, United States and Mauritius address that legacy and respect their rights and voices. The UK and US forcibly displaced the entire Chagossian people, more than 50 years ago, to build a US military base on Diego Garcia island, which remained a UK colony. This exile, based on UK and US officials' documented racism and lies denying the existence of the Chagossians, is a colonial crime against humanity that will continue as long as they are prevented from returning home. The new treaty, which recognises Mauritius's sovereignty over the islands, looks unlikely to end this crime. Some Chagossians have welcomed the treaty, seeing it as a key step in their decades-long struggle to return to their homeland. Its preamble refers to 'wrongs of the past' and both governments pledge to support 'the welfare of all Chagossians'. The text of the treaty suggests that Chagossians could return to all islands in the archipelago, except for Diego Garcia, the largest island and many people's homeland. But the details of the treaty guarantee little for the Chagossian people, including their right to return. This agreement risks not repairing the harm but perpetuating it. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark 2019 advisory opinion, held that the UK's continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful. Crucially, the ICJ recognised the forced removal of the Chagossians as a major injustice. This treaty is supposed to implement this opinion. Yet the Chagossians' rights barely feature in the treaty. There is no recognition of them as the Indigenous people of the islands, no reference to the right of return and no guarantee of their participation in future governance or management of finances. Resettlement is limited to the outer islands, excluding Diego Garcia. The treaty addresses sovereignty, territory and military interests but says very little about human rights and accountability. This is reflected in the lack of financial compensation for the Chagossians. The UK has pledged annual payments to Mauritius for the continued operation of the base and 'development projects'. These figures would total at least £10 billion [R234 billion] across the 99-year lifetime of the deal. In contrast, the treaty says that Chagossians will receive a one-off payment of £40 million — the same amount offered by the UK a decade ago, when it ruled out any right of return. There's no explanation, consultation or guarantee that the funds will support resettlement. To put it starkly: £40 million is less than 0.5% of the total financial arrangement. It is not reparations. It is a footnote. The right to return to one's homeland is a basic principle of international law. But the treaty deliberately excludes Diego Garcia from resettlement — effectively entrenching the crime of forced displacement. The treaty also appears to give the UK a veto over development anywhere in the islands, which could block any effort to rebuild communities. The UK and Mauritius should, at a minimum, make a clear and public declaration recognising the Chagossians' right of return and guaranteeing their involvement in rebuilding their homeland. The US and UK should prioritise their employment at the Diego Garcia base and support their return through infrastructure and economic investment. Despite vague references to implementing the treaty 'in accordance with international law', there is no express acknowledgment that binding human rights treaties or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will apply in Chagos. This is particularly troubling, as Diego Garcia has long been a legal black hole — shielded from scrutiny over abuses such as torture. This treaty is not the end of the story. It is a test — not only of the UK's willingness to reckon with its colonial legacy but of the international community's commitment to justice and reparations for colonial crimes. The ICJ said the resettlement of the Chagossian people was the responsibility of the UN General Assembly. South Africa, the Caribbean nations, and other leaders of the global anti-colonial struggle, should take a stand there. They need to ensure that this implementation of the ICJ ruling on decolonisation also ensures the right of return of Chagossians to their homeland and reparations for the harm the UK and US have inflicted on them. Symbolic regret on its own is not justice. It is time for action — and for the Chagossians to return home. Clive Baldwin is a senior legal adviser, and Allan Ngari is the African advocacy director, at Human Rights Watch.
