Latest news with #climatejustice
The Guardian
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The ICJ's ruling means Australia and other major polluters face a new era of climate reparations
Today, Australia has found itself on the wrong side of history. The International Court of Justice has handed down a landmark ruling in the most significant climate decision ever issued by a court. As a barrister representing Solomon Islands in the case, I was in the courtroom to hear the judges reshape the global fight for climate justice. The world's top court resoundingly rejected conservative arguments made by Australia and other high-emitting countries such as the United States, China and Saudi Arabia seeking to justify continued fossil fuel extraction. Instead, the court made a slew of progressive statements – ones that will have far-reaching implications. Under international law, countries are now bound to rapidly reduce their emissions below 1.5 degrees of warming. Failure to do so could result in developed countries like Australia having to pay monetary compensation to developing countries or being required to rebuild infrastructure and restore ecosystems damaged by climate change. This means we could be entering a new era of climate reparations. This is a watershed moment in the global environmental movement. In a breakthrough for climate campaigners, the court specifically targeted the fossil fuel industry in its ruling and held that countries failing to take action to protect the environment from greenhouse gases – including from fossil fuel production, consumption, exploration licences or subsidies – may commit an 'internationally wrongful act.' With today's decision, that can now be punished under international law. So what implications does this have for Australia? Australia is looking to host COP31 next year and stands on the brink of releasing its updated 2035 emissions reduction target in coming months. As it does so, it may have to change its legislation and policies to rapidly curb the emissions of companies in its jurisdiction. First, the ruling puts pressure on the Albanese government to increase its ambitions for emissions reduction. The court made clear that countries must set goals under the Paris agreement which align with the 1.5C temperature target. Climate Action Tracker has found that for Australia to carry its fair share of the global emissions reduction burden, it should reduce its emissions by 76% by 2035 against a 2005 baseline. This aligns with the upper range of possible targets identified by the Climate Change Authority, which has suggested an emissions target between 65% and 75% by 2035. In light of the ICJ decision, a failure to set a target close to 75% is likely to come under legal or political challenge by other countries and domestic campaigners. Second, to comply with its international obligations, Australia will have to curb its production and use of fossil fuels. Despite its tough talk on climate change, the Albanese government has continued to approve coal, oil and gas projects at an alarming rate. In recent months the government has approved the extension of Woodside's controversial North West Shelf development, a massive gas project which will operate to 2070 and emit an enormous 87.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year. If Australia secures the hosting rights to COP31 it will come under intense pressure from its neighbours in the Pacific to live up to its rhetoric and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. Third, and most importantly, today's ruling means that Australia could pay climate reparations in the future. Developing countries may bring claims against Australia seeking damages. As a high-emitting developed country and one of the largest exporters of coal, oil and gas in the world, Australia has both the historical responsibility for climate change and the means to pay other nations for compensation and restitution. While the scale of any reparations will depend on the amount of damage suffered by the country bringing the claim, the breadth of climate change impacts mean that Australia and other countries could be faced with very high-value cases. Money is a strong motivator. The world court's decision today means that the threat of reparations can now be used to compel action from the worst, most stubborn climate offenders – Australia included. That is transformative for climate lawyers, giving us a powerful tool to pressure governments and corporations to acknowledge the realities of our warming planet. But it is a victory for everyone – a clear statement that the status quo isn't sufficient. We must act now to confront the climate crisis. And in a moment when hope feels hard to come by, that's very good news indeed. Harj Narulla is a barrister and leading global expert on climate litigation at Doughty Street Chambers and the University of Oxford. He represented Solomon Islands before the ICJ but is writing in his personal capacity
SBS Australia
19 hours ago
- Politics
- SBS Australia
Countries have a duty to fight climate change, court says
An international court says countries have an obligation to prevent harm from climate change and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Activists welcomed the non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight as a step in the right direction. The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The ICJ decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection , reparations and a future". The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: 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? Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu called the deliberation a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Judge Iwasawa said the two questions "represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet". "International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem," he said. "A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. "Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the individual, social and political levels — to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come."
ABC News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Top court rules on legal obligation to fight climate change
Sabra Lane: The United Nations top court has found countries that fail to take measures to prevent climate change could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice's landmark ruling has paved the way for countries to sue each other over the impacts of climate change. It's been welcomed by environmental groups and legal experts who say it's a victory for small islands in countries suffering from the impacts of high polluting nations. Europe correspondent Bridget Rollason reports. Protesters: What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now! Bridget Rollason: Outside the Hague's World Court, protesters gathered to witness a historic moment in international law. Samira Ben Ali travelled to the Netherlands from Africa for the hearing, which could change the course of future climate action across the world. Samira Ben Ali: If we don't take action now, if we don't reduce our emissions, then this is going to keep on going and it's going to become bigger and bigger. Bridget Rollason: The landmark case before the International Court of Justice has been hailed a David and Goliath battle. A group of Pacific students were able to bring the world's biggest problem to the world's highest court through a global campaign led by Vanuatu and backed by 130 countries, including Australia. For the first time, its 15 judges were asked to decide what obligations states have to prevent climate change and what are the consequences if they fail. President of the court, Yuji Iwasawa, said if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law, even if they're not signed up to the Paris Agreement or want to leave, like the US. Yuji Iwasawa: The consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching. They affect both natural ecosystems and human populations. Bridget Rollason: Nearly 100 countries gave evidence over two weeks of hearings in the court's biggest ever case. President Iwasawa ruled countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to compensation and sue other countries for damage they've suffered from rising global temperatures. Yuji Iwasawa: The court considers that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life, right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living. Bridget Rollason: The landmark 500-page ruling is non-binding, but it's seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. It's been welcomed by environmental groups and legal experts, who say it's a victory for small islands and countries taking legal action against big polluting nations for failing to reduce their emissions. Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, Joie Chowdhry, said the ruling is more than just a powerful symbol. Joie Chowdhury: It could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touched, which run to the very heart of climate justice, and could secure a lifeline for climate-affected communities and nations all over the world. Sabra Lane: That's Joie Chowdhury from the Centre for International Environmental Law, ending that report from Bridget Rollason.
The Independent
21 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Top UN court calls climate change an ‘existential threat'
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion saying that a healthy environment is a human right. The court said that governments could be violating international law by failing to act on climate change, which it called an 'urgent and existential threat'. The action, initiated by Vanuatu and supported by over 100 countries, establishes that states have stringent obligations to reduce emissions and that inaction could constitute an internationally wrongful act. Although not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion is considered a "turning point" and a "seismic win" for climate justice, expected to significantly influence future climate litigation and international negotiations. This landmark opinion is anticipated to shape nearly 3,000 climate-related lawsuits filed globally.
Sky News
a day ago
- Politics
- Sky News
'A new era:' World court issues landmark ruling in biggest ever climate court case
The failure of countries to protect the planet from climate change may be a violation of international law, the UN's top court has said in a landmark ruling likely to shape climate litigation for years to come. In the world's biggest ever climate court case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday also said countries damaged by climate change-fuelled extreme weather could be entitled to reparations in some cases. "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system... may constitute an internationally wrongful act," Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said during the hearing. It wraps up the largest ever case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, which involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. Mr Iwasawa added a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right - a verdict that may pave the way for countries to take each other to court for breaching that duty. Wednesday's findings have been claimed as a "tremendous victory" by campaigners and vulnerable nations like the Pacific islands of Vanuatu and Tuvalu, which are rapidly disappearing underwater, while footing the bill for climate damages caused by bigger, richer, more polluting countries. It will likely disappoint Global North countries - like the UK, Australia and Canada - who had told the judges in December that their climate responsibilities are limited to those set out in the Paris climate agreement. The 500-page long advisory opinion is non-binding, and it will take time to assess its true impact on climate action around the world. But observers say it sets a precedent for future court cases and opens the door for new types of lawsuits. Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, said: "For the first time, the world's highest court has made clear that states have a legal duty not only to prevent climate harm - but to fully repair it." She added: "It adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations." Existing treaties like the Paris Agreement are widely perceived to not go far enough to tackle climate change, and progress on tackling emissions has gone at a snail's pace in comparison with the pace that scientists say is needed. Island nations, not content to "go silently to our watery graves", took the matter to the world's top court, asking for an advisory opinion on two things. Firstly, what countries are legally bound to do under international law to protect people and the planet from climate change, and secondly, what the penalties might be if they fail. The case started out as a campaign by 27 students studying law in Vanuatu in 2019. Eventually, the government there agreed to lobby the United Nations for the case, and in 2023 the UN General Assembly formally requested the ICJ to hear the case, backed by 132 countries. One of the students who initiated the campaign, Cynthia Houniuhi from the Solomon Islands, called it the "start of a new chapter". "In five years or 10 years time, small islands like ours will cease to exist," she told Sky News. "Imagine that for a young person, with hopes for the future, with hopes to have children... Will they get to see the islands that I lived on... or will I have to show pictures and say: 'This is where we used to be?' - I do not accept that." Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, said: "This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level." He said it will "open the door for new cases, and hopefully bring justice to those, who despite having contributed the least to climate change, are already suffering its most severe consequences".
