Latest news with #internationallaw
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
ICJ climate ruling: Five key questions on global duties and polluter accountability
THE HAGUE, July 23 — The International Court of Justice is preparing to hand down its first-ever opinion on climate change, seen by many as a historic moment in international law. Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. Its own 'advisory opinion' is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. Here are some of the key things to watch for when the ICJ delivers its ruling at 1300 GMT (9pm Malaysian time) today: What legal framework? This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' said Vanuatu. Tuvalu delegation arrives for the United Nations' top court International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s public hearings in an advisory opinion case, that may become a reference point in defining countries' legal obligations to fight climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, December 2, 2024. — Reuters pic And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions — if any — for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law — 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' — roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. This picture taken on March 23, 2025 shows a resident walking along the Vavau Beach in Samoa on an autumn morning. 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. — AFP pic Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of 'transboundary' law, often known as the 'no-harm' rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 'Future generations' The concept of 'intergenerational equity' is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. 'The impact of climate change is not bounded by time,' argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. 'Human beings alive now cannot claim rights on behalf of future generations,' argued Germany. — AFP
Reuters
3 hours ago
- 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).
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
ICJ set to deliver historic opinion on states' legal duty to prevent climate harm
THE HAGUE: The world's top court will Wednesday deliver a seminal ruling laying out what legal obligations countries have to prevent climate change and whether polluters should pay up for the consequences. It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say the judges' opinion could reshape climate justice, with major impacts on laws around the world. 'I think it will be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through,' said Ralph Regenvanu, climate change minister of Vanuatu. The Pacific island nation spearheaded the push for a court opinion amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations. 'We've been going through this for 30 years... It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have,' Regenvanu told AFP. The United Nations has tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions 'for present and future generations'? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? ICJ advisory opinions are not binding upon states and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court. But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world's highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies and ongoing legal battles. Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said the ICJ should 'clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis.' 'And that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes, and public debates,' he told AFP. To help answer the two questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organizations around the world. Analysts say Wednesday's ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action. Those bringing the cases are often from climate-vulnerable communities and countries, alarmed by the pace of progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court's biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements. In what was billed a 'David Vs Goliath' battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet. Major polluters including the US and India warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed. The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime. But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader. These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters. 'The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused,' said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu. These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country's history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges. 'Despite producing less than 0.01 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia,' said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu. Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court, said climate change will become 'catastrophic as the years go by, if we do not course-correct.' 'The urgency of the matter, the seriousness of why we're here, and how important this is, is not lost upon all Pacific Islanders, all small island countries,' he told AFP 'That's why we're looking to the ICJ.'
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
‘Historic' ruling on climate change by World Court: What to expect
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is preparing to hand down its first-ever opinion on climate change, seen by many as a historic moment in international law. Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. The court's 15 judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard when they deliver their findings at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, at 3pm local time on Wednesday (13:00 GMT). The court's 'advisory opinion' is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. This speaks to the first question put to the court by the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and other countries bringing the case: What responsibilities do countries have to tackle climate change? Countries that are top fossil fuel polluters say the court does not need to address the question as legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are enough. But climate advocates argue that the ICJ should adopt a broader approach to the issue, including a reference to human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges at The Hague to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' the island nation argued. The judges will also consider if there should be legal consequences for countries that contribute the most to the climate crisis. The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage caused by pollution. Issues around liability are considered sensitive to many countries in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022, wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. 'We're hoping that the ICJ will say that it is a legal obligation of states to address climate change. You have to respect other states and their right to self-determination,' Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said on the eve of the ruling. 'Colonialism is gone – you know, supposedly gone – but this is a hangover where your conduct as a state continues to suppress the future of the people of another country,' Regenvanu said. 'And you don't have a legal right to do that under international law. And not only that, but if your actions have already caused this harm, there have to be reparations for that,' he added. Vishal Prasad, one of 27 then-law students at the University of the South Pacific who pushed for Vanuatu to take up the case back in 2019, says he is 'emotional, scared, nervous, anxious', ahead of Wednesday's ruling. Prasad, who is now the director of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change group, says that climate change is an 'existential problem for young people in countries like Kiribati, in Tuvalu, in Marshall Islands'. 'They're witnessing the effects of climate change every high tide,' he said. Prasad added that Pacific Island cultures celebrate the concept of 'wayfinding'. 'You need to correct your course if you are going wrong,' he said.
France 24
13 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
ICJ climate ruling: five things to watch for
Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. Its own "advisory opinion" is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. Here are some of the key things to watch for when the ICJ delivers its ruling at 1300 GMT on Wednesday: What legal framework? This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider "the entire corpus of international law" in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is "the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer," said Vanuatu. And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions -- if any -- for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law -- "ubi jus, ubi remedium" -- roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of "transboundary" law, often known as the "no-harm" rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 'Future generations' The concept of "intergenerational equity" is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. "The impact of climate change is not bounded by time," argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. © 2025 AFP
