Latest news with #PeterDejong
Japan Today
3 days ago
- Sport
- Japan Today
Five teams and 30 riders excluded from women's Tour de Romandie in a dispute over GPS trackers
FILE - Tour de France Women's winner Katarzyna Niewiadoma of Poland, wearing the overall leader's yellow jersey, celebrates on the podium after the eighth stage of the Tour de France Women cycling race with start in Le Grand-Bornand and finish in Alpe d'Huez, France, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong, file) cycling Five teams and 30 of the world's top cyclists have been removed from the women's Tour de Romandie in a dispute over GPS trackers on riders, the sport's governing body said as the race began Friday. The excluded riders made up nearly a third of the field for the three-day race in Switzerland and included 2024 Tour de France winner Katarzyna Niewiadoma. The International Cycling Union said the teams had been asked to each pick one rider to wear a GPS tracker ahead of a wider rollout of the device to all riders at the world championships in Rwanda next month. They refused to nominate riders and were excluded from the race, the UCI said. All 30 riders were listed as non-starters on the race website. 'It is deplorable to witness the refusal of certain teams to move forward together to protect the safety of riders, and the UCI condemns their non-cooperation,' the UCI said. It also claimed that some of the teams were part of an organization developing a rival tracking system. The exclusions may not be the end of the matter. The UCI said it 'shall consider if other measures are warranted' under its regulations. In a joint statement, the five teams said they supported measures to make cycling safer but disagreed with how the UCI went about it. Forcing teams to pick one rider to wear the UCI-mandated device meant they had to 'discriminate one rider against other riders,' they said. 'This action disregards the rights of teams and riders, applies the measure in a discriminatory manner, and contradicts the UCI's own stated commitment to dialogue with stakeholders,' the teams said. 'We are always at the forefront to make cycling a safer sport, but it should be achieved through collaboration, not coercion.' The UCI says it wants to introduce the trackers to ensure a quick response to crashes. At last year's world championships in Switzerland, 18-year-old cyclist Muriel Furrer died after sustaining a head injury in a crash. She was competing in the junior women's event on rain-slicked roads when she crashed in a forest area south of Zurich. She reportedly lay alone for almost an hour and a half before she was discovered at the side of the road and airlifted by helicopter to the hospital. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Toronto Star
4 days ago
- Sport
- Toronto Star
Five teams and 30 riders excluded from women's Tour de Romandie in a dispute over GPS trackers
FILE - Tour de France Women's winner Katarzyna Niewiadoma of Poland, wearing the overall leader's yellow jersey, celebrates on the podium after the eighth stage of the Tour de France Women cycling race with start in Le Grand-Bornand and finish in Alpe d'Huez, France, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong, file) PDJ flag wire: true flag sponsored: false article_type: : sWebsitePrimaryPublication : publications/toronto_star bHasMigratedAvatar : false :
Forbes
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
World Court Opens Door To Climate Change Lawsuits Against The U.S.
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice reviewed the financial liability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent climate change. After over two years of proceedings, the ICJ released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States could be liable to pay reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. While the opinion is non-binding, it will shape the future debate over climate change policy and lead to a wave of new lawsuits. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The UNGA posed two questions to the ICJ:Addressing the first question, large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, argued that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. Therefore, no additional legal obligations exist that may create a call for reparations or action not directly negotiated. Developing countries argued that the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement are a starting point, but that the impacts of climate change violate human rights under international common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, those countries that contribute to climate change, through the production of fossil fuels and GHG emissions, should pay reparations to low lying and developing nations that are 'adversely impacted' by climate change. The Court agreed, finding that the obligations to prevent climate change are found under customary international law. The Court stated, 'The customary duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, which requires States to 'use all the means at [their] disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in [their] territory, or in any area under [their] jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State', also applies to the climate system, which is an integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations." The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established that liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' The court addressed the two parts of the obligation and provided more context. Addressing the environmental harm to be prevented, the court stated: "For the duty to prevent to arise, there must be a risk of significant harm to the environment. Whether an activity constitutes a risk of significant harm depends on both the probability or foreseeability of the occurrence of harm and its severity or magnitude and should therefore be determined by, among other factors, an assessment of the risk and level of harm combined. The Court is of the view that a risk of significant harm may also be present in situations where significant harm to the environment is caused by the cumulative effect of different acts undertaken by various States and by private actors subject to their respective jurisdiction or control. "The determination of 'significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment' must take into account the best available science. The question whether any specific harm, or risk of harm, to a State constitutes a relevant adverse effect of climate change must be assessed in concreto in each individual situation." Looking at the due diligence requirement, the Court listed seven factors that should be considered when determining if a country took the necessary steps to prevent environmental harm. Generally, those are (1) laws or regulations to reduce GHG emissions; (2) availability of scientific information; (3) binding and non-binding agreements from COPs; (4) 'the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; (5) 'scientific information regarding the probability and the seriousness of possible harm; (6) risk assessments relating to GHG emissions; and (7) 'States' notification of and consultation in good faith with other States where planned activities within their jurisdiction or control create a risk of significant harm or significantly affect collective efforts to address harm to the climate system.' The opinion is a huge win for climate change activists. While it is non-binding, it is important to note that any disputes between countries will be heard before the International Court of Justice, the same court that issues the advisory opinion. It is also likely that some national courts will adopt the same legal interpretations. Expect litigation based on the opinion to begin within the next few weeks.
23-07-2025
- Politics
UN's top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't. "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis "an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet." The non-binding opinion, which runs more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Paves the way for other legal actions Notably, the court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account, as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. Judges are seated as the ICJ opens a hearing to deliver an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change on Wednesday. Photo: Associated Press / Peter Dejong The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states, including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China, are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the packed court with a banner that read: Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW. Afterward, others emerged laughing and hugging. Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused, former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson said in a statement. The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future, said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. A brief history of the court case After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising seas, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion in 2023, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line, Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings last December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres, with parts of the Pacific rising higher. The world has also warmed 1.3 C since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots, said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. WATCH | European court forces Switzerland to strengthen climate policies: In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme Court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. The presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem, and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.
Toronto Sun
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
UN's top court delivers landmark decision on tackling climate change
Published Jul 23, 2025 • 3 minute read Judges, right, arrive to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change and what consequences they may face if they don't, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo by Peter Dejong / AP Photo THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The top United Nations court has opened a hearing to deliver an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and consequences they may face if they don't. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The president of the International Court of Justice is expected to read the non-binding opinion that is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The decision could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits, and legal instruments like investment agreements. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered. They held a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Any decision by The Hague-based court would be unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. — Associated Press writer Annika Hammerschlag in Vanuatu contributed to this report. Canada Columnists Sunshine Girls Relationships Olympics
