Latest news with #climatejustice
Irish Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the ICJ climate change decision: a far-reaching legal statement
The decision by the International Court of Justice on the responsibility of states to protect the rights of current and future generations to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is the most far-reaching legal statement on the issue to date. The verdict, delivered in the Hague late week, has immense implications in spelling out who is responsible for climate change and an overheating world. It has brought consolation to states that are most vulnerable to human-induced global warming, particularly Africa and low-lying Pacific island states who were instrumental in having the case heard at the UN court. It is a key decision which should guide delivery of climate justice across the planet. It is considered the clearest legal affirmation to date that cooperation among states to address climate change is not optional, but rather is a binding obligation. Governments must tackle fossil fuels, the single biggest contributor to the climate crisis. Critically, failing to prevent harm to the climate could result in them being ordered to pay reparations or other forms of restitution. While this is an advisory opinion, it provides unprecedented legal clarity on how existing international norms apply to addressing climate change, with significant implications for fossil fuel production and transitioning to a clean energy future. Moreover, the courts also found states were legally liable for the actions of the private sector and must regulate corporate activities. READ MORE According to environmental law specialists, the ruling could open the door for more litigation against corporate carbon polluters and allow for states to return to the ICJ to hold each other to account. The world's largest emitters are most liable. Within that cohort, major economies – notably the US, China, India and Russia as well as petrostates – will not be deterred by this outcome. Their attempts to justify continued fossil fuel extraction have been rejected by the world's highest court. The spectre of reparations will lurk around every corner for decades to come. Fossil fuel companies, especially those recently reverting to the core activities of generating oil and gas and divesting from renewables, should take heed of this judgement as such activity will be regarded as reckless – and aggravated damages will be justified. This decision will embolden progressive countries increasingly aware that swift emissions reductions are needed to ensure a safe future for humanity. The Irish Government in line with its wish to be a global leader in addressing the climate crisis should be proactive and consider enshrining the right to a healthy environment in the Constitution. And it must join others in taking concerted global action by reducing emissions, removing carbon, restoring ecosystems and building resilience for what is come.
ABC News
4 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry
A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.
The Guardian
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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.
