Latest news with #UNAssembly
Reuters
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
World Court to issue landmark opinion on states' climate obligations
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court will deliver a crucial opinion on Wednesday on what legal obligations states have to fight climate change, in what is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. The two questions the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views. Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, holding hand-written placards with messages such as: "Climate justice now!" and "End fossil fuels". The protesters chanted: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N. said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE ( opens new tab, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate, opens new tab to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgements with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).
Irish Independent
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
The Irish Independent's View: Enough is enough – Ireland and the rest of the world must act to stop Benjamin Netanyahu
Taoiseach Micheál Martin said he was horrified by the attack on the vehicle, which included Irish aides. Oblivious to international condemnations and outrage, Israeli troops continue to pound the Gaza Strip with airstrikes. The relentless, indiscriminate offensive was said to have killed a further 82 people. Several women and a week-old infant were among the dead, according to health sources. UK foreign secretary David Lammy said the situation in the enclave had become 'monstrous'. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's actions were 'wholly disproportionate', he added. Absent has been any real censure of Mr Netanyahu from the US. Washington has yet to demand restraint, or to use its unique power to enforce a ceasefire. Despite the dire situation, no humanitarian aid has yet been distributed in the enclave, according to the UN. Shocking scenes of malnutrition among children have been reported and there are genuine fears that without immediate aid, thousands of infants will die. Mr Netanyahu this week revealed the only reason even token aid was being allowed in was for 'practical and diplomatic reasons'. He cited some US senators – Israel's 'greatest friends in the world' – who told him they would withdraw support for the country because of the media images of starving Palestinians. The true horrors are unknown because the international media is banned in Gaza. The wanton destruction and indifference to the carnage suggest there is no level of deprivation Mr Netanyahu is not prepared to plumb. Yet it was telling that even the remote prospect of isolation from the US was enough to make him think twice. If he is allowed remain impervious, and immune from punishment for the monumental injustices, the Palestinian people risk being wiped out. There have been renewed pleas from some TDs to call Israel to account at the UN Assembly. The aim is to get an international peacekeeping force to protect Gaza. The Government would require a Dáil mandate before invoking a UN emergency meeting. Surely if anything can be done to stop the killing of women and small children, and enable the starving to be fed, we have a moral compunction to act. Many Israelis are also alarmed at the scale of violence. Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said: 'What Israel is currently doing in Gaza is very close to a war crime. Thousands of innocent Palestinians are being killed, as well as many Israeli soldiers.' George Orwell said: 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' Israel has certainly been told often enough, only to give the international chorus of disapproval a determined deaf ear. If the US won't do it, it is up to the UN and the rest of the world – including Ireland – to make Tel Aviv pay attention.
