Latest news with #IwasawaYuji
Scroll.in
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
ICJ delivers an unambiguous order on states' responsibilities to halt climate change
In a much-awaited readout of its advisory opinion on climate change, the president of the International Court of Justice Iwasawa Yuji on July 23 spelt out in crystal-clear terms the legal and customary obligations of states under international law and climate treaties to ensure the planet survives the catastrophic impacts of climate change. The opinion paved the way for states to be held accountable for fossil fuel emissions and the resultant climate harm. The order has been hailed by the Pacific Islands states especially, Vanuatu, which led the global demand for the opinion, as unprecedented and as going above all expectations. The advisory opinion clearly mentioned that failure of states to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by continuing fossil fuel production, granting exploration licences or fossil fuel subsidies constituted an internationally wrongful act. States also have an obligation to regulate private actors as a matter of due diligence. In relation to climate damage, the court held that in the event that restitution should prove to be materially impossible, responsible states have an obligation to compensate. Some states argued during the hearing in December that it was difficult to fix responsibility. But the court held that it was scientifically possible to determine the emissions contribution of each state in both current and historical terms. The court also stated that injured states could separately invoke the responsibility of states committing wrongful acts that caused climate harm and seek reparations. Judge Yuji said climate change was more than a legal problem: it concerns an existential problem of 'planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet'. A complete solution to this daunting and self- inflicted problem, the court said, required all forms of human and scientific knowledge and human will and wisdom at the individual, social and political level to change habits, comforts and the current way of life. The court expressed the hope that its conclusions would allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the climate crisis. Two questions The court had been requested by the United Nations General Assembly to address two critical questions in its advisory opinion, the hearings for which were completed in December 2024 in The Hague. The court first examined the obligations of states to address climate change for current and future generations under international laws including human rights law, the United Nations Charter, the Law of the Sea and climate treaties and agreements. Secondly, it considered the legal consequences that states face if they failed to meet their obligations and caused serious climate harm. The United Nations General Assembly resolution seeking this advisory opinion was the result of a six-year campaign by law students of the University of the South Pacific. The advisory opinion was a transformational shift to seeking climate justice, said Vishal Prasad, the campaign director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'Everything we hoped for is there,' he said. 'We are grateful and happy with the outcome.' The court also addressed intergenerational equity by underscoring the need for action to save the planet. It sends a strong message to young people and 'gives us hope, a tool for climate justice, a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice', Prasad said. Placing responsibility Some important observations made by the court include placing clear responsibility on polluters and those states causing climate harm and the obligation of such states to pay for damage and restoration for the loss of habitat and biodiversity. The court clarified that states were obliged to adhere to both customary and international laws as well the climate treaties: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and other United Nations conventions on biodiversity, desertification as well as human rights and the Law of the Sea. It was not merely enough to prepare Nationally Determined Contributions as obligated by the Paris Agreement that set out ambitions and targets of each state to curb greenhouse gas emissions but also to ensure that all states were collectively moving towards the common goal of curbing emissions. 'Beyond expectations' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, said the opinion was above and beyond his expectations because it directly addressed fossil fuels, reiterating that it was wrong for states to give exploration licences or to subsidise or produce fossil fuels. The key contribution of the advisory opinion was two- fold, said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu's case and international lawyer at Blue Ocean Law. She said the court has mentioned the whole spectrum of obligations that applies to the conduct of states that have caused climate change and that states that failed to regulate fossil fuels, and continue with subsidies, are liable. 'When you violate your obligations and commit a wrongful act, you need to stop that and you need to make reparations for the injuries that you have caused,' she said. The implications of this advisory opinion are tremendous, she added. The advisory opinion endorsed the 'polluter pays' principle. 'We have come to the era of accountability and states can be held accountable for current and past emissions, states can be held to account for failing to meet their obligations.' she said. Experts from the Center for International Environmental Law commended the ruling for offering a legal foundation for climate accountability. 'The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy,' said senior attorney Joie Chowdhury of the centre. The court's decision lays a stronger legal foundation for climate accountability, offering a vital lifeline to frontline communities and nations, with far-reaching consequences for climate litigation, multilateral negotiations, and campaigns across the world. Merely adhering to the climate agreements was not enough the Court held and that states had an obligation to do more and their best to limit climate harm. Added Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law, 'When a court like the ICJ recognises new connections between conduct and legal norms, like the idea that failing to curb fossil fuels-related emissions can violate international legal obligations, it does not stop there. That recognition opens the door for further legal claims.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Climate change an 'existential threat', states legally bound to act: ICJ
In a historic development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared that climate change constitutes an "urgent, existential threat" and that states have binding legal obligations to address it. The court's first-ever advisory opinion on climate change, unanimously adopted by all 15 judges, provides unprecedented clarity on the responsibilities of nations under international law and paves the way for a wave of climate litigation worldwide. The ICJ on Wednesday ruled that states must take all necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, halt fossil fuel expansion and provide reparations to vulnerable countries suffering climate-related harm. It found that failure to act on emissions, including through fossil fuel production, subsidies and licenses, could constitute an "internationally wrongful act" attributable to the state. Judge Iwasawa Yuji, delivering the opinion, called climate change a "concern of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life", adding that the court hopes "its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to solve the ongoing climate crisis". The court held that the legal discretion countries have in setting their climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), is not absolute. Instead, states are obliged to apply a "stringent" standard of due diligence, ensuring that their targets reflect the "highest possible ambition" and align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Importantly, the ruling clarifies that if restitution is materially impossible, responsible states must compensate for climate damage caused, thereby setting a firm legal precedent for reparations. The advisory opinion, though not legally binding, draws from existing international treaties and norms and is expected to have a far-reaching impact on global climate litigation. Courts worldwide are likely to cite the opinion in ongoing and future cases, particularly those targeting governments and fossil fuel companies for inaction or harm, climate policy experts said. The court's decision was prompted by a years-long campaign led by students from the University of the South Pacific, in collaboration with the Government of Vanuatu and youth-led groups like Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and World's Youth for Climate Justice. Their efforts culminated in a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution requesting the ICJ's opinion. Legal experts say the opinion will sharpen tools to hold polluters accountable and reinforce human rights principles like the right to a healthy environment, which the court reaffirmed as a binding norm and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other rights. Reacting to the decision, Sarah Mead, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, said the ruling "validates what the majority of people all over the world want and expect from their governments - meaningful climate action". She noted that the ICJ's findings build on rulings from multiple jurisdictions that have similarly found states legally responsible for insufficient climate action. Lorenzo Cotula, a principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said that the tension between the ICJ ruling and existing international investment laws. "International treaties protecting foreign investments, including fossil fuel infrastructure, can make it harder for governments to honour this duty," he said, adding the investor-state dispute system needs urgent reform in light of the court's findings. Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said, "Today the world's smallest countries have made history." He called the opinion a "lifeline" for frontline communities that have contributed the least to climate change but suffer its most severe impacts. Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said the decision marks the end of the "era of impunity". With clearly defined legal obligations now in place, she added, "Governments and corporations now face the weight of scientific evidence and international law" as they head into the UN climate conference in Brazil (COP30). Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, described the opinion as a "resounding declaration that the era of impunity for polluters and complicit states is over". He said the findings open the door for full reparations and signal that "the polluters must pay". The ruling also has implications for climate negotiations. It raises the stakes for upcoming summits, including COP30 in Brazil, where activists and developing countries are expected to push for climate justice, accountability and reparations as the foundation of future climate governance. India, during the ICJ hearings earlier this year, had argued that developed nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change, having historically contributed the most to global emissions. Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, had said, "If contribution to degradation is unequal, responsibility must also be unequal." India had urged the court to avoid creating new obligations beyond the existing international climate regime, which it said already accounted for historical emissions, climate justice and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). "It is inequitable and unjust to expect countries with negligible historical emissions to bear an equal burden in mitigating climate change," India had told the court, adding that developed countries must meet their finance and technology obligations and "lead by example by achieving net-zero well before 2050". India had also criticised the unfulfilled promise of ₹ 100 billion made by developed nations at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 and called the new climate finance package agreed at COP29 in Baku "too little, too distant" to address urgent needs. Highlighting its own efforts, India said that despite accounting for nearly one-sixth of humanity, its contribution to historical emissions is less than 4 per cent, and its per capita greenhouse gas emissions are below half the global average. Rangreji said India has been acting in "good faith" as a "solutions provider", even while balancing the imperatives of poverty eradication and sustainable development. He also cautioned against an overreliance on evolving climate science in determining obligations, saying that interpretation of evidence may carry biases and that decisions cannot be guided by science alone. Over 90 countries, including both large emitters and vulnerable island states, had submitted their views to the court. While some, like India and the US, advocated preserving the primacy of the existing UN framework, others sought strong legal direction on climate obligations. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
News18
6 days ago
- Politics
- News18
ICJ says climate change an existential threat, States legally bound to act
New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) In a historic development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared that climate change constitutes an 'urgent, existential threat" and that states have binding legal obligations to address it. The court's first-ever advisory opinion on climate change, unanimously adopted by all 15 judges, provides unprecedented clarity on the responsibilities of nations under international law and paves the way for a wave of climate litigation worldwide. The ICJ on Wednesday ruled that states must take all necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, halt fossil fuel expansion and provide reparations to vulnerable countries suffering climate-related harm. It found that failure to act on emissions, including through fossil fuel production, subsidies and licenses, could constitute an 'internationally wrongful act" attributable to the state. Judge Iwasawa Yuji, delivering the opinion, called climate change a 'concern of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life", adding that the court hopes 'its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to solve the ongoing climate crisis". The court held that the legal discretion countries have in setting their climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), is not absolute. Instead, states are obliged to apply a 'stringent" standard of due diligence, ensuring that their targets reflect the 'highest possible ambition" and align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Importantly, the ruling clarifies that if restitution is materially impossible, responsible states must compensate for climate damage caused, thereby setting a firm legal precedent for reparations. The advisory opinion, though not legally binding, draws from existing international treaties and norms and is expected to have a far-reaching impact on global climate litigation. Courts worldwide are likely to cite the opinion in ongoing and future cases, particularly those targeting governments and fossil fuel companies for inaction or harm, climate policy experts said. The court's decision was prompted by a years-long campaign led by students from the University of the South Pacific, in collaboration with the Government of Vanuatu and youth-led groups like Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and World's Youth for Climate Justice. Their efforts culminated in a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution requesting the ICJ's opinion. Legal experts say the opinion will sharpen tools to hold polluters accountable and reinforce human rights principles like the right to a healthy environment, which the court reaffirmed as a binding norm and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other rights. Reacting to the decision, Sarah Mead, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, said the ruling 'validates what the majority of people all over the world want and expect from their governments – meaningful climate action". She noted that the ICJ's findings build on rulings from multiple jurisdictions that have similarly found states legally responsible for insufficient climate action. Lorenzo Cotula, a principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said that the tension between the ICJ ruling and existing international investment laws. 'International treaties protecting foreign investments, including fossil fuel infrastructure, can make it harder for governments to honour this duty," he said, adding the investor-state dispute system needs urgent reform in light of the court's findings. Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said, 'Today the world's smallest countries have made history." He called the opinion a 'lifeline" for frontline communities that have contributed the least to climate change but suffer its most severe impacts. Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said the decision marks the end of the 'era of impunity". With clearly defined legal obligations now in place, she added, 'Governments and corporations now face the weight of scientific evidence and international law" as they head into the UN climate conference in Brazil (COP30). Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, described the opinion as a 'resounding declaration that the era of impunity for polluters and complicit states is over". He said the findings open the door for full reparations and signal that 'the polluters must pay". The ruling also has implications for climate negotiations. It raises the stakes for upcoming summits, including COP30 in Brazil, where activists and developing countries are expected to push for climate justice, accountability and reparations as the foundation of future climate governance. India, during the ICJ hearings earlier this year, had argued that developed nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change, having historically contributed the most to global emissions. Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, had said, 'If contribution to degradation is unequal, responsibility must also be unequal." India had urged the court to avoid creating new obligations beyond the existing international climate regime, which it said already accounted for historical emissions, climate justice and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). 'It is inequitable and unjust to expect countries with negligible historical emissions to bear an equal burden in mitigating climate change," India had told the court, adding that developed countries must meet their finance and technology obligations and 'lead by example by achieving net-zero well before 2050". India had also criticised the unfulfilled promise of USD 100 billion made by developed nations at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 and called the new climate finance package agreed at COP29 in Baku 'too little, too distant" to address urgent needs. Highlighting its own efforts, India said that despite accounting for nearly one-sixth of humanity, its contribution to historical emissions is less than 4 per cent, and its per capita greenhouse gas emissions are below half the global average. Rangreji said India has been acting in 'good faith" as a 'solutions provider", even while balancing the imperatives of poverty eradication and sustainable development. top videos View all He also cautioned against an overreliance on evolving climate science in determining obligations, saying that interpretation of evidence may carry biases and that decisions cannot be guided by science alone. Over 90 countries, including both large emitters and vulnerable island states, had submitted their views to the court. While some, like India and the US, advocated preserving the primacy of the existing UN framework, others sought strong legal direction on climate obligations. PTI GVS NSD NSD (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 10:00 IST News agency-feeds ICJ says climate change an existential threat, States legally bound to act Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NHK
6 days ago
- Politics
- NHK
ICJ says countries have obligations to take steps on climate change
The International Court of Justice says countries have obligations under international law to take measures against climate change, including curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The ICJ issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect to climate change on Wednesday in The Hague. ICJ President Iwasawa Yuji said, "The consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching," adding, "These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The court also said countries are required to protect the environment in order to ensure the enjoyment of human rights. The court stressed that a complete solution to this problem "requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge." It expressed hope that its conclusions will help inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis. The ICJ provided the non-binding advisory opinion in response to a United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted in 2023. This comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has taken a reluctant stance on addressing climate change.
National Observer
6 days ago
- Politics
- National Observer
Landmark court ruling a stark rebuke of Canadian position on climate change
A landmark finding from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday is reshaping international law by confirming that countries are legally bound to slash carbon pollution or risk paying billions in compensation to communities bearing the brunt of climate change. David Boyd, an associate professor with the University of British Columbia and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, told Canada's National Observer those findings 'should send shivers down the spine' of the fossil fuel industry and governments that support it. 'It's the clearest statement we've had from an international court that we have to get off fossil fuels,' he said. While the advisory opinion itself is non-binding, it is an authoritative statement on international laws which are binding on countries including Canada. 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,' Judge Iwasawa Yuji said Wednesday as he read the court's advisory opinion. The ICJ findings mean that countries' legal obligations to respond to climate change reach further than their duties under climate treaties like the Paris Agreement, reflecting a strong rebuke of Canada's position. At the hearings in December, Ottawa argued that countries' obligations to respond to climate change start and end with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, agreed to in 1992 and 2015 respectively. The UN framework convention broadly commits countries to stabilize warming temperatures at safe levels, while the Paris Agreement more specifically aims to limit warming to as close to 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures as possible. Those agreements commit countries to voluntary action, but do not effectively hold them accountable for failing to cut emissions at the pace and scale required to avoid catastrophic warming. Vulnerable countries, which have contributed the least to the crisis yet face the brunt of damages, argued this amounts to a violation of their human rights and undermines their sovereignty. Wealthy, high-emitting countries like Canada, however, did not want to see international law rewritten in a way that could hold them liable for climate damages — expected to total in the tens of trillions of dollars. 'Canada's pursuit of mega fossil fuel expansion projects stands in stark defiance of the ICJ... This historic ruling is not merely a legal opinion; it's a global mandate that shatters any illusion of continued fossil fuel impunity." The crux of Canada's argument was that states cannot be held responsible for failing to address climate change because there is no international law recognizing it as a wrongful act. That has now changed. Climate reparations In plain language, the ruling confirms that under international law, by which Canada is bound, countries are required to take more than voluntary action to address climate change. Major historic polluters like Canada are not just morally bound to cut emissions, but legally required to — or risk charges to compensate communities most harmed. The economic costs from climate change are estimated in the hundreds of billions per year, with one study pegging the figure at US$400 billion per year by 2030, while another estimates it between US$290 billion and US$580 billion per year in developing countries alone. Damages could reach US$38 trillion per year by 2050, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The court's findings suggest major polluters could be held liable for those damages. For context, Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which implies being responsible for $760 billion annually, based on $38 trillion in global damages per year by 2050. 'Today, we've entered a new era of climate accountability. The world's highest court has made it clear: climate-harming activities violate international law and people's rights,' said Elisa Morgera, UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights in a statement. 'Governments must cut emissions to protect people's lives and they must provide redress for the damage they've already caused.' 'Profound irresponsibility' The findings could upend Prime Minister Mark Carney's plans to nation-build. As recently reported by Canada's National Observer, several fossil fuel megaprojects are actively being considered to receive the greenlight from the federal government — paving the way for their construction, which would boost global greenhouse gas emissions and inflict harm on communities here and abroad by violating international laws requiring the prevention of transboundary harm. Among the projects Canada's National Observer identified as priorities for Carney's government, based on discussions with multiple government sources, are LNG Canada Phase 2, Cedar LNG and a potential revival of the Northern Gateway oil pipeline. 'Canada's pursuit of mega fossil fuel expansion projects stands in stark defiance of the ICJ's clear pronouncements,' said Harjeet Singh, a strategic advisor with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative and member of the United Nations' Technical Expert Group on Comprehensive Risk Management. 'This historic ruling is not merely a legal opinion; it's a global mandate that shatters any illusion of continued fossil fuel impunity,' he said. 'For Canada to advance LNG expansion or a major oilsands project while the world's highest court demands states compel drastic and immediate action on the fossil fuel industry's capacity to inflict further harm is an act of profound irresponsibility.' Boyd said the ICJ's findings strengthen the case for a fundamental rethink of the Canadian economy, away from building more fossil fuel infrastructure. 'I know that's a bitter pill for Mark Carney to swallow, but that's a direct conclusion stemming from today's ruling,' he said. Global Affairs Canada did not return a request for comment by deadline. Trickle down legal opinions In Canadian courts, the ICJ ruling is expected to influence climate litigation. Fraser Thomson, a lawyer with Ecojustice representing seven young people suing Ontario in a case called Mathur v. Ontario, said Canadian courts would be paying close attention to Wednesday's opinion. In Mathur v. Ontario, the seven youth are alleging that the Ontario government violated their Charter rights by weakening the province's 2030 emission reduction targets from 37 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by the same year. In practice, the revised target would allow an additional 200 megatonnes of greenhouse gas pollution by decade's end, comparable to 47 million gas powered cars driven for one year. The youths' argument is that a weakened target would dangerously expose people to higher levels of emissions, putting their health at risk while exacerbating extreme weather, and is therefore a violation of their Charter rights to life, security of person and equality. That court battle is the first Charter-related climate case, and has bounced between courts for years. In 2022, it was heard at the Ontario Superior Court, which did not find the decision was a Charter violation — but in October the Court of Appeal struck the lower court's decision down and sent it back to be heard again. Thomson said his clients will be back in court in December 'with the wind in their sails with the ICJ's opinion.' 'We believe it's really a matter of time before a court in Canada finds there is a violation of our Charter rights when governments fuel the climate crisis,' he said. Beyond the Mathur case, the ICJ's advisory opinion is poised to influence thousands of climate related lawsuits around the world. The vast majority of cases are occurring in Global North countries. According to a Global Climate Change Litigation database
