Latest news with #smallislandstates
Free Malaysia Today
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
ICJ says countries must address climate change threat
The 2015 Paris Agreement has so far failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. (EPA Images pic) THE HAGUE : The United Nations' highest court today 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°C. 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°C. 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 3°C 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 today'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.
Asharq Al-Awsat
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
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 (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 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 C (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 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 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.
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
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.
The Guardian
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Countries should keep their statehood if land disappears under sea, experts say
States should be able to continue politically even if their land disappears underwater, legal experts have said. The conclusions come from a long-awaited report by the International Law Commission that examined what existing law means for continued statehood and access to key resources if sea levels continue to rise due to climate breakdown. Average sea levels could rise by as much as 90cm (3ft) by 2100 if climate scientists' worst-case scenarios come true, and recent research suggests they could even exceed projections. This is particularly important for small island developing states because many face an existential threat. But as well as the direct loss of land, rising sea levels cause flooding, threaten drinking water supplies and make farmland too salty to grow on. Having waded through international law and scholarship and analysed state views and practices, legal experts concluded that nothing prevents nations from maintaining their maritime boundaries even if the land on which they are drawn changes or disappears. These boundaries give countries navigation rights, access to resources such as fishing and minerals, and a degree of political control. There is also general agreement that affected nations should retain their statehood to avoid loss of nationality. Legal experts say these conclusions are essential for maintaining international peace and stability. Speaking at the UN Oceans conference in Nice, Penelope Ridings, an international lawyer and member of the ILC, said the commission's work was driven by the 'fundamental sense of injustice' that sea level rise would be felt worst by the most vulnerable states, which had also contributed the least to the problem. Research has found that a third of present-day sea level rise can be traced to emissions from the 122 largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu has been particularly vocal in its concerns. Sea levels on its nine islands and atolls have already risen by 4.8mm and are expected to get much higher over the coming decades. Australia was the first country to recognise the permanence of Tuvalu's boundaries despite rising sea levels. In 2023, it signed a legally binding treaty committing to help Tuvalu respond to major disasters and offering special visas to citizens who want or need to move. Nearly a third of citizens have entered a ballot for such a visa. Latvia followed with a similar pledge of recognition. At the oceans conference, the Tuvaluan prime minister, Feleti Teo, said his citizens were determined to stay on their land for as long as possible. The government has just finished the first phase of a coastal adaptation project, building concrete barriers to reduce flooding and dredging sand to create additional land. Teo noted that the US$40m scheme was 'very expensive' and it had taken years to secure money from the Green Climate Fund. He urged Tuvalu's development partners to be 'more forthcoming in terms of providing the necessary climate financing that we need to be able to adapt. And to give us more time to live in the land that we believe God has given us and we intend to remain on'. Ridings said it was now up to states to take the commission's work forward. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Bryce Rudyk, a professor of international environmental law at New York University and legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), said the ILC had been very responsive to small states, which have traditionally not had their voices heard in matters of international law but are increasingly at the forefront of legal advances on climate change and marine degradation. In recent years, Aosis and the Pacific Islands Forum have both declared that their statehood and sovereignty, as well as their membership of intergovernmental organisations such as the UN, will continue regardless of sea level rise. The international court of justice, which will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion on climate change in the coming months, was petitioned by Aosis to affirm this.
