Latest news with #environmentallitigation
Telegraph
23-07-2025
- 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.'
Khaleej Times
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change threat
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. "Climate change treaties establish stringent obligations on states," judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failing to comply with them was a breach of international law. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." Earlier, as he started reading the court's opinion, judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace. Climate justice The two questions the UN 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, 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, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Paris Agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 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 UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than three degrees Celsius 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, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a 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 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. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.
Reuters
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The International Court of Justice said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate. The opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." Earlier, as he started a just over two-hour reading of the court's opinion, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. The deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace. Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney, at the Center For International Environmental Law laid out the possibility of big emitters being sued. "If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress," he said. Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions: 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? 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 at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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. They had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the "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.
RNZ News
23-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change
By Stephanie van den Berg and Alison Withers , Reuters President of the International Court of Justice Yuji Iwasawa (C) and other members of the top UN court as it handed down a landmark ruling on climate change. Photo: JOHN THYS / AFP The United Nations' highest court said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation . The International Court of Justice said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate. The opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." Earlier, as he started a just over two-hour reading of the court's opinion, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. The deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace. Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney, at the Center For International Environmental Law laid out the possibility of big emitters being sued. "If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress," he said. Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: 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? 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 at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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. They had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN 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 3000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. - Reuters
Reuters
22-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Italy's top court says climate case against Eni can continue
MILAN, July 22 (Reuters) - A climate change case against Italian energy group Eni ( opens new tab can continue, the country's top appeals court has ruled, in a jurisdiction case that had been raised by environmental groups Greenpeace Italia and ReCommon. The judgement, which the two organisations published on Tuesday, affirms that Italian courts have jurisdiction to hear climate litigation cases, including those involving emissions from Eni's foreign subsidiaries. "This historic ruling confirms that climate justice is possible in Italy," Greenpeace Italia and ReCommon said in a joint statement. The organisations originally filed suit in May 2023, alleging that Eni's decades-long fossil fuel operations contributed significantly to climate change, causing both current and future damage. They asked the court to ascertain Eni's responsibility for past and future environmental harm and also wanted to force the energy group and its key investors to rethink their climate strategy. State lender CDP - which owns stakes in groups deemed strategic by the government - and the ministry of finance were named as co-defendants as they own a combined 31.8% of Eni. In June last year Greenpeace Italia and ReCommon asked the top appeals court for clarification on climate litigation, to be sure that the Rome court has jurisdiction on such cases. After this ruling, the case will return to the Rome civil court. Eni said it was satisfied with the decision. "The proceedings can finally resume before the court of Rome, where the unfounded theories put forward by Greenpeace and ReCommon regarding the alleged responsibility of Eni for climate change-related damages will be dismantled," the energy group said.
