Latest news with #legalobligation
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Does the World Court's Sweeping Climate Opinion Matter? Five Takeaways.
Ask for someone's opinion on something gnarly and you might get some surprisingly strong words. That's what happened in The Hague on Wednesday, when the International Court of Justice, established by the United Nations and also known as the World Court, issued a stinging advisory opinion saying that countries have a legal obligation to limit the emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases and provide restitution if their specific actions caused harm. The opinion was unanimous. One legal analyst, Thomas Burri, a professor at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, called it 'unexpectedly bold.' It was the result of a yearslong effort led by the tiny Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu. The court's opinion is not legally binding, and some countries, including the United States, haven't accepted its jurisdiction over all matters. So how does it matter? The opinion could affect current cases, and spur more. The court's opinion could strengthen the case that citizens' groups have made in their national courts, from Australia to Switzerland, accusing their governments of failing to protect their people from the harms of climate change. 'Courts worldwide are likely to reference this ruling in their upcoming decisions,' said Joie Chowdhury, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University Law School professor, called it 'an invitation for lawsuits in many countries' courts saying not enough is being done.' It says government support for fossil fuels may be punishable. It concludes that state subsidies could be seen as an 'internationally wrongful act.' That's a big deal. Many countries, rich and poor, offer a host of subsidies for coal, oil or gas. The United States had previously argued that international law does 'impose specific obligations' on the production of fossil fuels, including subsidies. The opinion says countries have a legal obligation to regulate private companies within their jurisdictions. It strengthens calls for compensating poorer countries. One of the most provocative issues in global climate negotiations is who should pay for the damages caused by 150 years of fossil-fuel burning. That issue pits industrialized countries against smaller climate-vulnerable nations, and it's likely to come up at the United Nations-mediated climate talks in Brazil later this year. The court uses stark language. States have an obligation to 'compensate' if it can be shown that the actions of a state resulted in harm to others. 'This paves the way for more concrete demands around loss and damage, historical responsibility, and the rights of communities facing existential threats,' said Joana Setzer, a research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London. Mohamed Adow, a climate activist from Kenya, called it 'a rocket boost for climate justice.' It applies to the U.S. even though the U.S. doesn't always follow the court's findings. The advisory opinion plainly says that international human rights law obliges every country in the world to prevent harm to the environment. The issue is that the United States has had an ambivalent relationship with the court. It recognizes the court and appears before it frequently, but doesn't always abide by its recommendations, particularly when they run contrary to U.S. interests. Still, said Dr. Burri of the University of St. Gallen, 'That the advisory opinion is not binding matters less than it may seem,' because 'if states were to ignore it completely because it is not binding, this would carry a price over time.' Mr. Gerrard, of Columbia University, said he did not expect U.S. courts to enforce it. It shows that tiny countries have muscle. The case was initiated by Vanuatu, an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean whose 300,000 people are extremely vulnerable to disasters aggravated by the burning of fossil fuels. It began in 2018, when a group of law students presented President Nikenike Vurobaravu with a nascent idea. The president told The New York Times in an interview in 2022 that, as an elder, he felt obliged to take up their cause. Vanuatu's diplomats were then joined by several other small island nations. Together they persuaded other countries to seek an advisory opinion from the court. When they brought it to the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, it passed by consensus. That kind of unity is rare. The General Assembly Hall erupted in applause. 'Small countries basically rely on effective multilateralism,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate minister, said in an interview. 'We can't go it alone like the U.S. or other economies.'
France 24
2 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
Vanuatu: ICJ ruling a 'game-changer' for climate justice
On the eve of the pivotal ruling in The Hague, AFP spoke to the country's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu, 54, who opened the ICJ's hearings in December. What does this case mean for Vanuatu, and the world? "The Pacific Island leaders have made it very clear that climate change is the single greatest threat to the future of the Pacific peoples. "We're talking about climate change, the thing that's going to take away the future of our children. "For many Pacific countries, it's existential, because they will disappear, the low-lying countries like Tuvalu, like Kiribati. "If we cannot reduce the harm we're seeing, or try to slow it down, we're really facing the very worst consequences really soon." What are you hoping for from the ruling? "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. "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. "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." What impact is climate change having on your country? "In Vanuatu, we're seeing large areas of land that were previously habitable, and people who have lived there for a long time can no longer live there." "The other thing you're seeing is really frequent and more intense tropical cyclones, which are the most damaging natural weather event we get in Vanuatu. "The cyclone season is getting longer, we're seeing more extreme rainfall events, which cause flooding, landslides, that kind of thing. "And the effect on the economy as well for the government. We're seeing a large amount of damage that has to be addressed by the state. "You're seeing a large proportion of our GDP just going to rebuilding, recovering, and then preparing. "We need assistance to be able to build resilient public infrastructure, so we don't have to continue to spend money on rebuilding." How do you feel on the eve of the ruling? "I feel optimistic. I think we're going to get a good opinion... "We are crossing fingers, but very hopeful that it'll be a good result. "And I think it will also be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through. "We've been going through this for 30 years, you know, so it'll shift. It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have." What consequences do you see from the ruling? "I think the advisory opinion will be very powerful within states to be used by people taking cases against their governments. "For every court, this will be something they can use. Whether it's a municipal-level court or a state-level court, they will be able to use this new ruling to force, try to make governments be more accountable and do more. "But also I think for countries like Vanuatu... we will be able to take this to help us make our arguments. © 2025 AFP
Reuters
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
World Court to issue climate change opinion on July 23
THE HAGUE, July 7 (Reuters) - The top United Nations court will on July 23 issue a nonbinding opinion on countries' legal obligation to fight climate change, a decision expected to be cited in climate change-driven litigation around the world, the court said on Monday. The so-called advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is also expected to address whether large states contributing the most to greenhouse-gas emissions should be liable for damage caused to small island nations. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a similar opinion last week finding that its 20 Latin American and Caribbean member states must cooperate to tackle climate change and not take actions that set back environmental protections. During two weeks of hearings before the World Court in December, wealthy countries of the global north broadly argued that existing climate treaties like the Paris Agreement, which are largely nonbinding, should be the basis for deciding countries' responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states bearing the brunt of climate change argued for robust measures to curb emissions and require financial support from wealthy polluting nations. The World Court's advisory opinion is part of a global wave of climate litigation as countries, organizations and individuals are increasingly turning to courts for climate action. While nonbinding, the court's interpretations of law carry a lot of legal and political weight. Experts say its opinion could set a precedent in climate change-driven lawsuits in courts from Europe to Latin America and beyond.
