Latest news with #Inter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights
Vancouver Sun
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: International courts are sending a clear message on the climate crisis. Canada must pay attention
As we witness another summer plagued with extreme heat, floods, and skies choked with wildfire smoke, signs of hope are emerging in the fight against climate change from an unlikely place: the courtroom. Over the past month, two of the world's top courts affirmed what communities across our planet have known for years: the climate crisis is a human rights crisis. This legal conclusion demands immediate, wide-scale responses from governments and businesses everywhere. In early July, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered a landmark advisory opinion that states must take 'urgent, effective and coordinated actions, guided by human rights considerations' to address the climate emergency. The court ruled that a safe climate is a key element of the right to a healthy environment, a right that is 'fundamental for the existence of humanity'. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Then just days ago, in the culmination of a process initiated by students at the University of the South Pacific in 2019, the International Court of Justice, the highest legal body in the world, released its long-awaited advisory opinion on the role of international law in addressing the climate crisis. The court's message is clear: environmental treaties, human rights and customary international law create extensive obligations that all states must fulfil. The court warns that a state's failure to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions — including through actions that authorize or subsidize fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption — may violate international law. The two advisory opinions mark a pivotal moment in the fight against climate change. Both courts, relying on scientific evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, describe the climate crisis as an existential threat to humankind. Both courts concur that deep, rapid, and sustained reductions of GHG emissions are necessary for the prevention of significant harm to the climate system. Both courts concluded that protecting the right to a healthy environment is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of all human rights. These recent rulings echo similar judgments from the European Court of Human Rights and national courts in countries including the Netherlands, Germany, France, India, and Colombia — where citizen-led climate litigation has already made history in holding governments accountable for strengthening their climate policies and protections. Canadians struggling with climate related disasters, skyrocketing insurance premiums and the other threats of the climate crisis may rightly ask: How will these legal developments affect Canada? The short answer: profoundly. Canada is a major fossil fuel producer and consumer, but is compelled — by science, ethics, and now law — to rapidly transform our economy. This is daunting but doable, as the European Union and China are demonstrating. Canada cannot double down on fossil fuels without facing the spectre of immense legal liability. To the contrary, it is clear that Canada must implement actions that deepen and accelerate emission reductions. When governments make climate and human rights commitments, they must meet them. When they fall short, courts are justified to intervene. Courts play an essential role in our democratic system by empowering citizens to hold governments accountable. Canadian courts weighing climate cases are likely paying close attention to the recent international rulings. Judges and lawyers around the world acknowledge that the ICJ's advisory opinions provide authoritative interpretations of international law. The Supreme Court of Canada has long held that international law is relevant for defining the rights and freedoms protected by the charter. Across the world, youth are at the forefront of efforts to hold governments accountable for inadequate climate action, for the simple reason that their futures are gravely imperilled. In Canada, youth-led cases like Mathur vs. Ontario and La Rose v. Canada are asking courts to weigh in on whether Canadian governments are violating fundamental Charter rights by failing to take adequate action to protect the climate system. We could get insights into how closely Canadian judges have been paying attention to the international courts as early as December. That's when the Mathur case heads back to court in what it should be a watershed moment for climate justice in Canada. Backed by irrefutable scientific evidence, the youth are asking the court to find that the Ontario government is violating the charter rights of present and future generations by accelerating the climate crisis. They are asking the court to order Ontario to set an emissions reductions target that is based on the best available science and safeguards their human rights. As we face an ever-worsening climate emergency, the international courts give us reasons for optimism by placing law on the side of people and the planet. Courts are confirming what scientists, Indigenous leaders, and communities have known for years: a healthy environment and a safe climate are preconditions for the enjoyment of all human rights. Their rulings should serve as a catalyst for more ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stronger laws and policies to achieve those targets. Achieving climate justice isn't a starry-eyed fantasy, it's a legal imperative to ensure the future of human, and more than human life on Earth. It's only a matter of time before Canadian courts join the chorus of judges at the International Court of Justice and around the world in holding governments accountable for ensuring a just and sustainable future. David Boyd is a professor at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at UBC and a former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. His work has been cited in climate justice cases by courts around the world, including the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Adjusting The Temperature: Climate Change And International Law
Before the clenching constipation of reluctant and cloddish policy makers, climate change advocates have found courts surprisingly amenable to their concerns. Bodies of environmental law in national courts and international tribunals are now burgeoning on the obligations of states to address ecological harms and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. As is often the case, it's the children at the vanguard, pointing scolding fingers at the adults in filing petitions and drawing attention to the dangers of tardiness. 2025 is proving to be something of a good year for climate change litigants and activists. On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as requested by Chile and Colombia, issued an advisory opinion addressing the scope and extent of obligations with respect to respecting, protecting and fulfilling substantive rights regarding the climate emergency; procedural rights relevant to the same; and clarifying obligations towards vulnerable groups (children, environment activists, women, indigenous groups and so forth). The advisory note is more onerous in not merely insisting that States observe a negative obligation – that is, to not violate rights directly – but that they also take positive steps through 'reinforced due diligence' to deal with foreseeable harms arising from climate change. This entailed identifying a right to a safe climate. The prohibition against causing irreversible damage to the climate and the environment was also deemed a jus cogens norm, compellable under international customary law similarly to the prohibition against genocide, slavery and torture. Striking a novel note, the IACtHR also noted that Nature and its components should be acknowledged as subjects of rights, a move in what has been described as 'ecological constitutionalism' in the Latin American context. On July 23, the International Court of Justice also handed down an advisory opinion that promises to be momentous in its aggravations and irritations – at least to certain lawmakers and industries. For those countries still reaping the material, gluttonous rewards of fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption, this is bound to be of some concern. Begun daringly in 2019 as an action by a group of Pacific Island students from the University of the South Pacific, with able support from Vanuatu, the court unanimously found that producing and consuming fossil fuels 'may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to that state'. Vanuatu's submission to the Court emphasised the grim consequences of not adequately addressing state obligations to address greenhouse gas emissions, including the shocks of internal displacement. 'The forced displacement from ancestral lands and ecosystems leads to grave cultural losses. It impairs territorial sovereignty and inhibits the affected peoples from making a free choice about their futures.' The decision is important in several respects. It opines that countries have a legal obligation to mitigate climate change and limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a goal outlined in the Paris Agreement. States are accordingly obligated to advance climate plans that reflect their 'highest possible ambition' in making 'adequate contribution' in limiting temperature rises to that level. The discretion of countries to arrive at elastic 'nationally determined contributions' was limited by the requirements of 'due diligence'. Any such determined contributions had to be compliant with the obligations under the Paris Agreement and international environmental law. The Court also reached the view that responsibility for breaches of climate change treaties 'and in relation to the loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.' Direction is also given on what a State wrong in not mitigating climate change might look like. A failure to take the appropriate steps to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, 'including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumptions, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies' could be 'an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' The wrong arises, not from the emissions as such, but from the failure to protect 'the climate change system from significant harm resulting from anthropogenic emissions of such gases.' The decision is crucial in considering historical responsibility and the thorny issue of reparations, the nature and quantum of the latter being dependent 'on the circumstances'. Both nation states and 'injured individuals' could seek reparations from historically heavy emitters, a point previously dealt with most unsatisfactorily via 'loss and damage' finance discussions through UN climate negotiations. The impediment that such finance be only provided voluntarily is potentially overcome by the legal obligation to repair harm. This is particularly important for countries with economies at risk to climate change disruption (tourism, fishing, agriculture) and the enormous costs arising from dealing with environmental disasters. The ICJ proved dismissive of arguments – often made by states with powerful fossil fuel lobbies – that attributing precise responsibility in the context of climate change was impossible. The Court observed 'that while climate change is caused by cumulative GHG emissions, it is scientifically possible to determine each State's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.' Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanum, is already filling his file with teasing blackmail for appropriate targets. Given its location in the Pacific, and prominence as a fossil fuel exporter, Australia is in his sights. 'Australia,' he told Australia's Radio National, 'is committing internationally wrongful acts as it is sponsoring and subsidising fossil fuel production and excessive emissions.' Canberra needed 'to align itself with the advisory opinion and cease this conduct that is contributing to emissions and start making reparations.' From being a slow field of speculative pursuit and vague pronouncements, climate change litigation has become a branch of international customary law. Current developments in this field even include a petition to the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights from May 2025 seeking to do something along the lines pursued by the ICJ and the IACtHR, with a focus on African states. This development will be unwelcome among the fossil fuel lobby groups that still threaten and bribe political representatives – and it's been a long time coming.
The Star
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
Ecowatch: Extreme heat is a human rights crisis
I WAS in the United Kingdom recently for London Climate Action Week and the Global Tipping Points Conference 2025 and wasn't prepared for the heat – it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was alarming. Europe has been scorched by extreme heatwaves, with temperatures reaching 46°C, triggering wildfires in Turkey and Greece and causing mass evacuations, closing 1,900 schools in France, and causing over 2,300 heat-related deaths across 12 cities. Meteorologists are calling this 'exceptional'. In reality, it's the new normal. These extremes are not seasonal anomalies. They are a sign of political failure and, increasingly, a human rights crisis. On July 23, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion that countries have a legal duty to protect their citizens from climate change. Failure to regulate private companies that pollute the environment with greenhouse gas emissions may constitute a breach of international law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also released an advisory opinion in early July, explicitly recognising the right to life, health, food, water, and a safe environment. While not legally binding, advisory opinions carry moral and legal weight. They help shape the direction of international law and public conscience. The message is clear: climate inaction violates human rights. Malaysia has not yet classified climate change as a human rights issue, although the Malaysian Bar Council is advocating for its inclusion in the draft Climate Change Bill and as an amendment to the Federal Constitution. At the same time, we have a real opportunity to ensure the monumental adoption of the Asean Environ-mental Rights Declaration that Malaysia is leading on, recognising access to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right. The courts' opinions should add urgency. Climate justice is human rights justice. And in the court of public conscience, the fossil fuel industry is no longer just a suspect, it is guilty. Firefighters battling a wildfire in north-west Spain on Sunday. Europe has been scorched by extreme heatwaves, with temperatures reaching 46°C, triggering wildfires in Turkey and Greece and causing mass evacuations, closing 1,900 schools in France, and causing over 2,300 heat-related deaths across 12 cities. -- AP Extreme heat is one of the clearest signs of climate breakdown. And it is supercharged by fossil fuels. Every tonne of coal, oil, and gas we burn worsens the crisis. Children, the elderly, those which chronic illnesses, and people in energy poverty are suffering most – and dying. Meanwhile, those responsible continue to profit and obstruct change. A new report to the UN General Assembly by Elisa Morgera, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change, calls this out directly: We must defossilise. Fossil fuels are the primary cause of warming, but the industry has spent decades deploying a well-documented playbook of climate obstruction by denying the science, delaying regulation, and deceiving the public with false solutions. PR and advertising agencies are complicit in greenwashing and false solutions. And make no mistake, this is happening in Malaysia too with carbon capture and storage being sold as a magic bullet and liquefied natural gas being framed as 'greener' than coal. Fossil fuel subsidies continue to dwarf investment in clean energy. It's time to ask some questions. What is the cost to our rights? What is the price of inaction? Asean, home to some of the world's most climate-vulnerable populations, cannot delay. 'Cleaner alongside fossil' is not a transition – it is a trap. Net zero targets are meaningless if emissions keep rising and carbon lock-in takes hold. We must phase out fossil fuels, not accommodate them. And defossilisation must be fair. This means reskilling and training workers, redirecting subsidies towards public services, investing in development of green technologies and jobs, and calling forcibly on PR and advertising firms to cut ties with their fossil fuel clients. Clean air, liveable temperatures, and dignity in work are not luxuries – they are fundamental human rights. The heat we are experiencing is not normal; it is a warning. The science is clear. The law is catching up. Policy must move at the speed of both. For people and the planet, defossilisation is not radical. It's a moral and legal imperative. It is the only path forward. Prof Tan Sri Dr Jemilah Mahmood, a physician and experienced crisis leader, is the executive director of the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health at Sunway University. She is the founder of Mercy Malaysia and has served in leadership roles internationally with the United Nations and Red Cross for the last decade. She writes on Planetary Health Matters once a month in Ecowatch . The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
Hindustan Times
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
New dimensions to high stakes plastics negotiations
Negotiators will arrive in Geneva on August 5 to continue, and hopefully, conclude negotiations on the first global treaty to address the issues posed by plastics. This meeting is an extension of the negotiations in Busan last December, where countries were unable to agree on a final text. Recent non-binding opinions by both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on the connection between the climate crisis--of which plastic pollution is a major contributor--human rights, and State responsibility, have added new dimensions to what are likely to be fraught negotiations. While these judgements can be a catalyst for consensus to address the issue of plastic pollution, the treaty and its negotiations continue to face issues that have plagued environmental treaties of the past--disagreements over form, and access to finance and technology, have contributed to countries' inability to come to an agreement on what the treaty should look like. Plastics (Pixabay) Plastic is an essential component of the economy, with $1.2 trillion global plastics trade, and is manufactured from fossil fuels, the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. They are used everywhere, from packaging, to industrial applications, sports, agriculture and defence. The industry is also capital intensive, driving employment and investment, making plastics a driver of industrialisation. Around 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year, and this number is expected to triple by 2060. At the same time, the deleterious effects from unchecked manufacture are pervasive. Microplastics have been found in the human body, and plastic pollution has been documented in remote areas like Mount Everest. Additionally, several nations face labour protection concerns due to unsafe working conditions, exposing workers, especially children, to accidents and injury. Given the central role of plastics in the economy, and the risks they pose, a global treaty to address plastic pollution is necessary. The United Nations Environment Assembly launched negotiations for a global plastics treaty in 2022. However, several issues of disagreement have resulted in almost three years of gridlock. The primary point of concern exists between two specific groups--the 'Like-Minded Group' consisting of producers of oil and gas and manufacturers of plastic, such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China, which supports a focus on waste management and recycling to address plastic pollution, and the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), comprising countries that support a lifecycle approach and caps on plastic production. However, this dichotomy is not the only obstacle towards concluding a robust treaty. Concerns which have plagued previous environmental treaties, impact these negotiations as well. Chief among these is the consistent shortfall of funding provided by developed nations to various climate agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Convention on Biodiversity. Second is the issue of transfer of technology and capacity, with concerns around protection of intellectual property taking precedence, rather than prioritising environmental protection. Third, plastic production and manufacture has largely been outsourced by the developed world to emerging markets, relocating emissions, but also creating large economies and labour forces dependent on this industry. A treaty that fails to address these concerns is likely to be a non-starter. The opinions of the ICJ and the IACtHR can create the path towards consensus. The ICJ's opinion has opened the door for climate litigation and grounds for attribution of responsibility to states for their actions that contribute to the climate crisis, including actions which include an increase in fossil fuel production or consumption, such as manufacturing of plastics. A recognition of the duty of countries to prevent harm gives the HAC a stronger footing to demand a focus on the entire value chain of plastic production, and not just waste management processes. Concurrently, the legal pronouncements reinforce the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities--a key component of environmental treaty making and a core part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), requiring developed countries to show their commitment to combating change by increasing financial contributions and assistance through technology transfer and capacity building. These commitments are no longer just voluntary actions of good faith, but responsibilities of States who have been the larger contributors to climate change. Furthermore, the principles put forward by the opinions focus on a just transition. This can accelerate discussions around a time-bound reduction in plastic manufacture, giving members of the Like-Minded Group time to retrain their workforce, diversify industry, and ensure adequate alternatives for workers involved. Historically, the negotiations around addressing global plastic pollution were political in nature. The opinions have now defined a concrete legal framework within which negotiations can take place. However, this framework must be interpreted and applied in a manner that works for all parties. Because plastic pollution crosses borders, a global effort is needed to address the issues that plastics pose. These legal developments provide negotiators with a potential mechanism to break the existing deadlock. This article is authored by Kartik Ashta, international law and sustainability expert, Geneva.
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Inter-American court says states must protect people from climate change
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that countries belonging to the Organization of American States (OAS) have an obligation to take "all necessary measures" to protect populations from climate change. The decision means that around 20 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean that recognize the court's jurisdiction must undertake legal reforms that could increase the requirements imposed on businesses, something environmentists have long advocated. "States must adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising... from the degradation of the global climate system," the Costa Rica-based court said in response to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile. It underlined that "the right to a healthy environment" is included among the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Преносим лазерен заваръчен пистолет, 50% отстъпка днес HL Купете сега Undo The court is an autonomous legal institution that interprets and applies the American Convention, which has been ratified by more than 20 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. The court said countries must "adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations committed by state and private companies." "States must urge all companies domiciled or operating in their territory to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and its impacts on human rights," it said. The first government reaction to the decision came not from one of the OAS member states, but from the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which hailed it as "groundbreaking." The ruling was also welcomed by environmentalists. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which was involved in the case, said such "advisory opinions" were "authoritative statements of binding international law and carry substantial legal weight." "The court has broken new ground and set a powerful precedent," said Nikki Reisch, the organization's climate and energy program director. "The court's conclusions should put big polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, on notice: climate-destructive conduct violates the law." Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), said the ruling established "legally binding standards" for the protection of the right to a healthy environment. Marcella Ribeiro, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said that it was the first time an international court had "directly addressed climate change as a legal and structural human rights issue."
