Latest news with #Urgenda
News.com.au
3 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
The world's top court is poised to tell governments what their legal obligations are to tackle global warming, and possibly outline consequences for polluters that cause climate harm to vulnerable countries. Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. - How has climate litigation evolved? - Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. - Why have recent cases been deemed historic? - Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. - What could be the impact? - Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. klm/np/djt/tc
France 24
3 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. - How has climate litigation evolved? - Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. - Why have recent cases been deemed historic? - Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. What could be the impact? Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. © 2025 AFP
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
The world's top court is poised to tell governments what their legal obligations are to tackle global warming, and possibly outline consequences for polluters that cause climate harm to vulnerable countries. Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. - How has climate litigation evolved? - Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. - Why have recent cases been deemed historic? - Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. - What could be the impact? - Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. "It doesn't force states to act, but it shows them where the law stands and where they should be headed." klm/np/djt/tc Solve the daily Crossword
The Guardian
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Federal court dismisses landmark Torres Strait climate case but warns of ‘bleak future' without urgent action
The federal court has dismissed a landmark case brought by two Torres Strait community leaders that argued the Australian federal government breached its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from climate change. In delivering the decision, however, Justice Michael Wigney noted: 'There could be little if any doubt that the Torres Strait Islands face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken.' The class action, filed in 2021, argued the government had a legal duty of care towards Torres Strait Islander peoples and that it had breached this duty by failing to prevent or deal with damage in the Torres Strait linked to global heating. The lead plaintiffs, Torres Strait community leaders Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai from the islands of Boigu and Saibai, sought orders requiring the government to take steps to prevent climate harm to their communities, including by cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the pace climate scientists say is necessary. Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as an email Hearings in the case were held in 2023 in Melbourne and on-country in the Torres Strait to allow the court to tour the islands and view the existing impacts of climate change. On Saibai Island, homes were already being inundated by king tides, the cemetery had been affected by erosion and sea walls had been built. The legal challenge was modelled on the Urgenda climate case against the Dutch government, in which the Urgenda Foundation and 886 people took the Dutch government to court for not doing enough to prevent the climate crisis. That case was the first in the world in which citizens established their government had a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change and resulted in the court ordering the Dutch government to take immediate steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Uncle Pabai, Uncle Paul and their communities were represented by law firm Phi Finney McDonald and their case is supported by the Urgenda Foundation and Grata Fund, a public interest organisation that helps individuals access the courts. More details soon …
