Latest news with #TheHague
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
UN court: Climate crisis is ‘existential threat'
UN court: Climate crisis is 'existential threat' NewsFeed The International Court of Justice says climate change is an 'urgent and existential threat' in its first-ever climate opinion, requested by the UN. Protesters gathered in The Hague as judges weighed whether major polluters should be held legally accountable for the damage. Video Duration 01 minutes 31 seconds 01:31 Video Duration 00 minutes 41 seconds 00:41 Video Duration 01 minutes 43 seconds 01:43 Video Duration 01 minutes 17 seconds 01:17 Video Duration 03 minutes 07 seconds 03:07 Video Duration 00 minutes 54 seconds 00:54 Video Duration 03 minutes 18 seconds 03:18
LBCI
2 hours ago
- Politics
- LBCI
Vanuatu minister: ICJ decision 'landmark milestone for climate'
Vanuatu's environment minister hailed Wednesday's ICJ decision as a "landmark milestone" after the world's highest court declared that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and opened the door for reparations. "It's a landmark milestone for climate action," said Ralph Regenvanu on the steps outside the court in The Hague. "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time". AFP
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain could be sued over causing climate change
The UN has opened the door to Britain being sued over its historic contribution to climate change. In a significant legal opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, allow other states affected by climate change to sue them. It also cleared the way for lawsuits over historic emissions, which could leave the UK, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, at risk of legal action from other nations. The advisory opinion issued on Wednesday in The Hague is a way of clarifying specific questions of international law, and is not legally binding. However, it carries legal weight and moral authority and is expected to be influential on the future of environmental litigation. The UK implemented an ICJ advisory opinion when it agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year in a deal in which Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, played an influential role. The new opinion will raise fears that Lord Hermer would back any attempt by a foreign country to use the opinion to sue Britain. 'Hermer has demonstrated he does not bat for Britain,' said Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK. The Tories and Reform both rejected the ruling and said they would not pay any damages if they were in government. Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions on issues such as reparations and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'The Labour Government is equally ideologically obsessed with this nonsense. Activist-led court rulings like this should never be treated as binding. 'This is the process of lawfare that led to the Chagos surrender and must not be replicated on this issue. We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.' Mr Tice said: 'Under no circumstances would a Reform government pay any ludicrous climate reparations. Nor will we not be beholden to any foreign court. 'This is another non-binding advisory judgment by the ICJ, who absurdly said we should give up the Chagos. They just hate us.' The case was put forward by a group of Pacific island law students. Ultimately, 132 nations supported it in the ICJ. The opinion ran to 133 pages and took two hours to read out. The opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was welcomed by environmental groups and by those living in islands at risk from rising sea levels and extreme temperature caused by climate change. Vanuatu is the island most at risk from climate change. Ralph Regenvanu, its minister of climate change adaptation, said Vanuatu would take the ICJ ruling to the UN General Assembly and 'pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision'. He said 'The Global South is bearing the brunt of a crisis it did not create. Families are losing their homes, entire cultures are at risk of disappearing, and lives are being shattered by man-made climate disasters. 'The nations most responsible for emissions should be held accountable for any violations of legal obligations and they must also step up and lead in providing resources and support to aid those most affected.' Legal experts said the judgment was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities in 2019. Such countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change and have been frustrated by the lack of progress in tackling the problem. The Pacific islands, for example, are at the forefront of the risks of climate change, but are responsible for less than 1 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. UN negotiations over how to curb global warming have often been stymied over how to balance the obligations of richer developed countries that polluted heavily with poorer nations being asked to cut their emissions. Developed countries, including Britain, argued that existing climate agreements like the 2015 Paris Agreement were enough and no further obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday, Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the president of the ICJ, rejected that argument. He said broader international law applied and countries not signed up to the Paris Agreement – or which, like the US, want to leave it – must still protect the environment He said developing nations have a right to seek compensation for the impacts of climate change, for example an extreme weather event destroying buildings and infrastructure. The amount of damages that a country could pay if a claim was successful is not clear. £2.8tn cost of climate change in 20 years The science journal Nature has previously published analysis estimating that climate change caused $2.8tn of losses between 2000 and 2019. But Judge Iwasawa warned it would be difficult to prove which countries were responsible for which part of climate change. The Foreign Office said the judgment was non-binding and there was no basis for the UK to pay reparations. A spokesman said: 'Tackling climate change is and will remain an urgent UK and global priority. Our position remains that this is best achieved through international commitment to the UN's existing climate treaties and mechanisms. 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. 'We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30, and will tackle the climate crisis in a way that makes the British people better off.'
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
UN's top court says all countries have to act against climate change. Here are the key takeaways.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' top court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, its 15-black-robed judges weighing in for the first time on what the court's president called 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.'
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Un's top court says all countries have to act against climate change. here are the key takeaways
The Hague, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations' top court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, its 15 black-robed judges weighing in for the first time on what the court's president called an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet. The International Court of Justice's unanimous non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, was immediately hailed by activists as a turning point in international climate law. After years of lobbying by island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the court in 2023 to answer 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? Here are some of the key points from the opinion delivered Wednesday. A healthy planet is a basic human right. In a simple statement that could have profound legal ramifications, the court said everyone is entitled to a habitable planet. 'The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is therefore inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during a two-hour hearing. A livable planet is a human right and is part of international customary law, meaning every country is obliged to protect it, not just countries that have signed climate treaties and other agreements. Violating international law. A failure to address climate change, the court said, could be a violation of international law. That matters because it applies to all countries and paves the way for legal actions including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account, domestic lawsuits, and investment agreements that have to conform to international law. 'With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: Those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and full reparation,' said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. Payback time? The court ruled that some countries or individuals suffering from the effects of climate change could be eligible for compensation. 'For climate damage linked to greenhouse gas emissions, restitution may take the form of reconstructing damaged or destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity,' the court said. If that's not possible, financial compensation could be assessed, though the judges conceded it may be difficult to calculate as there is usually a degree of uncertainty with respect to the exact extent of the damage caused. Activists hailed that part of the decision as a historic turning point in their search for justice. '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. Climate refugees. While the court's opinion is far-reaching, no one expects it to immediately solve the problems created by climate change. The judges noted that people may be forced to flee their homes to escape the dangers posed by climate change, and countries are obliged to not turn away climate refugees when their lives are endangered. 'If a country disappears under rising ocean levels, that country doesn't cease to exist,' they said. For the Pacific Island nations that pushed for the opinion, the threat is real. Since 1993, sea levels around Vanuatu's shores have risen by about 6 millimeters (.24 inches) per year–significantly faster than the global average–and in some areas tectonic activity has doubled that rate.
