Latest news with #internationallaw
WIRED
a day ago
- Politics
- WIRED
The ICJ Rules That Failing to Combat Climate Change Could Violate International Law
Jul 24, 2025 12:31 PM In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice declared that failure to act on climate change can be an 'internationally wrongful act'—meaning countries could face legal consequences for harming the planet. Vanuatu's minister of climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, delivers a speech during a rally ahead of the International Court of Justice's session. Photograph:If a country fails to take decisive action to protect the planet from climate change, it could be breaking international law and be held liable for damages caused to humanity. This is one of the conclusions of an unprecedented advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states in the face of this environmental crisis. The 15 judges that make up the ICJ, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, described the need to address the threat of climate change as 'urgent and existential.' Unanimously, they determined that signatories to various international agreements could be violating international law if they do not adopt measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling states that a 'clean, healthy, and sustainable environment' constitutes a human right. This interpretation elevates the climate debate beyond the environmental or economic realm, positioning it as an issue of justice and fundamental rights. The shift in focus could significantly influence future international legislation and litigation, making it easier to hold polluting countries accountable for the environmental damage they cause. As of June of this year, according to the most recent report from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, there were approximately 2,967 active climate change lawsuits in nearly 60 countries, with more than 226 new cases initiated in 2024 alone. Yuji Iwasawa, president of the ICJ, clarified that this is an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling. However, he expressed that the court hopes that this pronouncement will 'inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis.' The case leading to this opinion originated in 2019, when a group of students from Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, began pushing for government inaction on the climate crisis to be legally recognized as an 'existential risk.' Subsequently, Ralph Regenvanu, the country's minister of climate change, filed a formal complaint with the ICJ. In 2023, the UN General Assembly formalized the request for an advisory opinion from the court. The judges answered two key questions: What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for countries that, by action or inaction, cause significant damage to the climate, especially in relation to vulnerable island states and present and future generations? The court's analysis considered the provisions of international treaties such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, among others. The ICJ's assessment concluded that states have a duty, 'by acting with due diligence and using all means at their disposal,' to prevent activities under their jurisdiction or control from adversely affecting the environment. ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa (center) issues the advisory opinion at The Hague on July 23, 2025. Photograph:The opinion stresses that the need 'to prevent significant transboundary harm under customary international law, are obligations erga omnes '—that is, they are obligations to the entire international community. In this sense, Iwasawa emphasized, the protection of the environment is a precondition for guaranteeing human rights. The negative effects of climate change, he added, can hinder rights to water, health, housing, and family life. The court also clarified that what constitutes an internationally wrongful act is not the emission of greenhouse gases per se, but the failure to comply with obligations, both conventional and customary, to protect the climate system. The opinion text stresses that countries in breach of such obligations must assume their responsibility and face the legal consequences of their acts or omissions. If found to be in breach of their obligations, they should stop their unlawful conduct, guarantee they won't repeat their actions if the circumstances so require, and give full reparation to those affected, including through restitution and compensation. 'Where several states are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each state may be invoked in relation to that act,' the advisory opinion states. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action,' Joie Chowdhury, senior counsel at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. 'It's not just about future targets—it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots.' The opinion issued represents a significant victory for island nations and international movements that, for decades, have sought to establish legal mechanisms to hold major greenhouse gas emitters accountable for the consequences of climate change on their livelihoods, well-being, and the survival of their ecosystems. This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.
France 24
a day ago
- Politics
- France 24
Major economies welcome 'milestone' ICJ climate ruling
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday declared that states were obliged under international law to tackle climate change, and failing to do so could leave them open to being sued. The ICJ said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat" and countries had a legal duty to prevent harm from their planet-warming pollution. Countries breaching their climate obligations were committing a "wrongful act", the court said in its advisory opinion, which is not legally binding but carries political and legal weight. Campaigners and countries on the climate frontlines hailed the ruling as an important moment in the fight for accountability from big polluters most responsible for global warming. The German foreign ministry on Thursday said the ICJ's opinion confirmed that "climate protection is the duty of all states". It described the ruling as an "important milestone". The EU said the "important" decision "only confirms the immensity of the challenge we face and the importance of climate action and the Paris Agreement". "It also reaffirms the need of taking collective and ambitious action," Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, told journalists. China also welcomed the "positive" ruling. "The advisory opinion reflects the long-term positions and propositions of the vast majority of developing countries, including China, and has positive significance for maintaining and promoting international climate cooperation," said foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun. The British foreign ministry said it would take time to examine the advisory opinion before commenting in detail. "Tackling climate change is and will remain an urgent UK and global priority," the statement said. "Our position remains that this is best achieved through international commitment to the UN's existing climate treaties and mechanisms." The United States, which has embraced a fossil-fuel agenda under President Donald Trump, had on Wednesday given a muted response to the ruling. A US State Department spokesperson said it "will be reviewing the Court's advisory opinion in the coming days and weeks". © 2025 AFP
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Climate Science Is Now the Law
The science on climate change has long been settled. Now the law is, too. On Wednesday, the International Court of Justice, the judicial branch of the United Nations, recognized for the first time that there is no way to solve the climate crisis or atone for its devastating consequences without confronting its root cause: the burning of fossil fuels. Back in 2023, the South Pacific archipelago nation of Vanuatu and other climate-vulnerable countries, with the help of Pacific Island students, secured a United Nations resolution asking the International Court of Justice to clarify what existing international law requires governments to do about climate change and what legal consequences they face if their failure to uphold the law causes serious harm. The court's conclusion comes on the heels of two other international advisory opinions on climate change and a growing number of national judgments. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared that the climate crisis is a human rights emergency, triggering human rights obligations for nations and businesses. Its sweeping opinion acknowledged the outsize role the oil and gas sector plays in generating planet-warming emissions, and emphasized the duty of governments to regulate and control these polluters. A 2024 climate opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea likewise affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions pollute the marine environment and that countries have a duty to prevent environmental harm that affects other countries, whether it comes from public actors or private companies. The I.C.J.'s unanimous opinion reinforced these conclusions and broadened their reach, stating that countries must protect citizens from the 'urgent and existential threat' of climate change. When a country fails to curb greenhouse gas emissions — whether by producing or consuming fossil fuels, approving new exploration to find them or subsidizing the industry — it may be held liable for 'an internationally wrongful act,' the court's 15 judges said. This makes it much harder for any government or company to say that rules don't apply to them or they don't have to act. Read together, these three landmark legal rulings leave no doubt that continuing fossil fuel production and use, let alone expanding it, violates the law. It is a cease-and-desist notice to fossil fuel producers. Governments, industry and scientists have known for decades that fossil fuels are the principal cause of climate change. Oil, gas and coal account for nearly 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and science shows that it is impossible to prevent a rise in global temperatures unless new fossil fuel projects are stopped and existing ones shut down. But fossil fuel companies have systematically delayed climate action, first by denying the science, then by derailing the most aggressive regulations and goals with intense lobbying. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
UN ruling offers lifeline to climate-threatened communities
A landmark ruling by the United Nations ' top court has found that governments, and by extension corporations, could be in breach of international law if they fail to take adequate action on climate change. Legal experts say the decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is likely to accelerate climate litigation, bolster demands for reparations from vulnerable nations and shape future lawsuits against both states and fossil fuel producers. In its first advisory opinion on the climate crisis, issued on Wednesday, the court said that countries had a legal duty to prevent environmental harm, protect their populations from climate risks and ensure access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which it recognised as a human right. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' Judge Yuji Isawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life'. The non-binding opinion, backed unanimously by the court's 15 judges, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. 'Though non‑binding, this ruling carries significant legal and political weight and is poised to guide courts and governments throughout our region,' said Charles Santiago, co-chair of the Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights and a former member of the Malaysian parliament.
Japan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Top U.N. court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change. In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law. The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control. Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met." "I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatuan Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out. 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, said, "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice." U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. "The world must respond." Human right to clean environment Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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." While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second-biggest current emitter, behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations. Vanuatuan Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on Wednesday. | AFP-JIJI "As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the opinion. With skepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialized countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. Political and legal weight The court's opinion is nonbinding, 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. Harj Narulla, a barrister specializing in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. "These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said. Two questions 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? Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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. The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C above preindustrial 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.
