Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Top UN court rules countries, including the UK, can be sued for role in climate change
Top UN court rules countries, including the UK, can be sued for role in climate change. Decision, made by a judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands, cleared the way for nations to sue each other over the historical causes of climateChange. The non-binding ruling will be seen as a victory for countries facing the brunt of the effects of climate change today. However, the judge noted it would be difficult to determine which nations caused specific parts of climatechange. The case was first brought to the International court by law students from a group of Pacific Islands.
Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (C) delivers a speech as he attends a demonstration ahead of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Picture: Getty
By Henry Moore
A top UN court has ruled that countries, including the UK, can be sued for their role in climate change.
Listen to this article Loading audio…
The decision, made by a judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands, cleared the way for nations to sue each other over the historical causes of climate change.
However, the judge noted it would be difficult to determine which nations caused specific parts of climate change.
This non-binding ruling will be seen as a victory for countries facing the brunt of the effects of climate change today.
Read more: Essex Police chief rejects claims of bias and says he won’t resign in wake of migrant hotel protest
Read more: Brazilian asylum seeker ‘earned £6k a month’ on rented delivery accounts
Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (C) delivers a speech as he attends a demonstration ahead of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) session. Picture: Getty
The case was first brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by law students from a group of Pacific Islands, a region which regularly faces extreme weather caused by climate change.
“Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu.
“This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”
Industrialised nations, including the UK, argued against the decision, suggesting current climate change agreements place enough responsibility on developed countries.
But today, Judge Iwasawa Yuji rejected that argument, calling on countries like the UK to adopt more ambitious climate policies.
He added the ruling should also apply to countries that are signed up to the Paris Climate Agreement, such as the United States.
“The ruling is a watershed legal moment,” said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law told the BBC.
“With today’s authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation,” she added.
Climate change: UK faces ‘climate reparations’ UN buckles to calls for countries to sue each other over emissions
International Court of Justice has opened the door to countries suing each other over climate change. Former Home Secretary Priti Patel said the court had “lost its core purpose” The court had an unanimous opinion that the failure of nations to take action to protect the climate system could constitute “an internationally wrongful act” A judge admitted determining which country caused which part of climate change would be difficult. The findings come after the UN General Assembly requested an opinion from the ICJ after campaigning from law students from Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. More than 100 countries, organisations and experts addressed the court in a bid to influence the opinion.
It comes as the United Nations’ highest judicial body weighed in on climate change for the first time, with the now Shadow Foreign Secretary saying the court had joined “bandwagons”.
The court had an unanimous opinion that the failure of nations to take action to protect the climate system could constitute “an internationally wrongful act”. However, a judge admitted determining which country caused which part of climate change would be difficult.
The court also found it was a “precondition” for states to protect the environment to ensure human rights. It added that Government support for fossil-fuel production could be a potential violation. Patel 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.”
REUTERS | Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Wednesday
“The Labour Government is equally ideologically obsessed with this nonsense.” Patel added that “activist led court rulings like this should never be treated as binding” and compared the process of law fare to the Chagos situation”. “This is the process of law fare that led to the Chagos surrender and must not be replicated on this issue,” the Witham MP explained. “We challenge Labour to put Britain’s interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.”
GETTY | Judges at the ICJ
The ICJ has no mechanism of actually enforcing an advisory opinion on nations, however, the New York Times reported that it could have far-reaching influence on litigation in courts across the globe. “The environment is the foundation for human life, upon which the health and well-being of both present and future generations depend,” the court’s president Judge Iwasawa Yuji said. The findings come after the UN General Assembly requested an opinion from the ICJ after campaigning from law students from Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. It led to a two-week hearing in December where more than 100 countries, organisations and experts addressed the court in a bid to influence the opinion. The court’s 15 judges were asked to form an opinion about two main questions.
Those include what countries are obliged to do, under existing international laws and treaties, to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gasses. The second being what the legal consequences are if, by their acts or omissions, they have caused significant harm. Countries, including the United States and Saudi Arabia – two of the most powerful fossil fuel producers – argued that the 2015 Paris accord was sufficient enough to address climate change. The arguments from the United States came towards the end of former President Joe Biden’s only term.
Top UN court opens door for countries to sue each other over climate change
The International Court of Justice has ruled that countries can sue one another over climate change. Ruling is advisory and non-binding, but legal experts believe it will carry significant weight. Case was originally proposed in 2019 by a group of law students from low-lying Pacific island nations. Campaigners hope this ruling will now pave the way for compensation claims from countries that have historically contributed the most to climate change, such as the U.S. The court ruled that developing nations are entitled to seek damages for losses such as destroyed infrastructure and livelihoods due to climate-related disasters. The economic damage from climate change between 2000 and 2019 amounted to $2.8 trillion — or approximately $16 million every hour.
In a historic and potentially game-changing decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that countries can sue one another over climate change, including for historic greenhouse gas emissions that have driven global warming.
Although the ruling, delivered Wednesday (23 July) in The Hague, Netherlands, is advisory and non-binding, legal experts believe it will carry significant weight and could reshape international environmental law, reports BBC.
The decision marks a major victory for climate-vulnerable nations and frontline communities who have long demanded accountability for the escalating impacts of climate change.
“This is a victory not just for us, but for every frontline community fighting to be heard,” said Flora Vano from Vanuatu, one of the most climate-vulnerable nations. “Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through — our suffering, our resilience, and our right to our future.”
The case was originally proposed in 2019 by a group of law students from low-lying Pacific island nations, regions at immediate risk from rising seas and extreme weather events. Their initiative gained widespread support from developing countries frustrated by the slow pace and broken promises of global climate negotiations.
The ICJ, the UN’s highest court, acknowledged that proving which country contributed to specific climate-related damages will be complex and must be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, the court reaffirmed that states have legal obligations under both the Paris Agreement and broader international law to take the most ambitious steps possible to reduce emissions and protect the environment.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji stated that failing to adopt such measures could constitute a breach of these legal obligations. He added that even countries not party to the Paris Agreement — such as the United States, which previously attempted to exit the pact — are still bound by international law to safeguard the climate system.
Campaigners hope this ruling will now pave the way for compensation claims from countries that have historically contributed the most to climate change. The court ruled that developing nations are entitled to seek damages for losses such as destroyed infrastructure and livelihoods due to climate-related disasters.
While determining specific accountability and calculating damages will remain complex, the court’s opinion is expected to serve as a legal foundation for climate justice claims in the coming years.
According to a study published in Nature, the economic damage from climate change between 2000 and 2019 amounted to $2.8 trillion — or approximately $16 million every hour.
Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, called the ruling “a watershed legal moment.”
“With today’s historic ruling, the ICJ has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy — including through compensation,” she said.
The decision is expected to influence future climate litigation, particularly as climate-affected nations seek accountability and reparation from high-emitting countries.
British couple detained in Iran unhurt by Israeli prison bombing
Couple held in Iran unhurt by Israeli bombing last month. Craig and Lindsay Foreman, both 52, have been charged with espionage. They were arrested in Iran while on a round-the-world trip in January. Cross-parliamentary group renews calls for UK government to resolve issue. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said it is “deeply concerned” at the situation and is providing Mr and Mrs Foreman with consular assistance. The APPG said just three “welfare visits” had been able to take place since the couple were detained by Iranian authorities – the last being in May. They are innocent British nationals falsely accused of espionage and held hostage, it said.
Image source, Getty Images Image caption, Craig and Lindsay Foreman were detained in Iran in January
Author, Zac Sherratt Role, BBC News, South East
2 hours ago
The UK government has been urged to prioritise securing the release of a British couple detained in Iran.
Craig and Lindsay Foreman, both 52 and from East Sussex, have been charged with espionage, which they deny, after being arrested in Iran while on a round-the-world trip in January.
On Wednesday a cross-parliamentary group confirmed the couple had not been harmed in Israeli strikes last month and renewed calls for the UK government to resolve the issue.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said it is “deeply concerned” at the situation and is providing Mr and Mrs Foreman with consular assistance.
In a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, the all-parliamentary group for arbitrary detention and hostage affairs (APPG) said just three “welfare visits” had been able to take place since the couple were detained by Iranian authorities – the last being in May.
Last month, Israel bombed various targets across Tehran, including Evin Prison, saying it was hitting “regime targets and agencies of government repression”.
The APPG said Mr and Mrs Foreman’s family were relieved to now learn the couple were still being kept in prison in Kerman “and not ultimately transferred to Evin Prison” before the bombings.
To play this content, please enable JavaScript, or try a different browser Video caption, ‘They’re not criminals – they’re just a mum and a dad’, Lindsay Foreman’s son says
The group said it believed Iran was holding Mr and Mrs Foreman to use as political leverage.
“They are innocent British nationals falsely accused of espionage and held hostage,” it said.
“Mistakes made in past cases, including the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, must be learnt from.
“More must be done to work with other countries whose foreign nationals remain in arbitrary detention in Iran, to ensure all possible solutions are being considered.”
The APPG said the government must also focus on supporting Mr and Mrs Foreman’s family.
“We are concerned by reports that there has been inadequate communication with the family in the past six months of their detention, especially while they were possibly implicated in the bombing of Evin Prison,” the group said.
The FCDO said it is in contact with the relevant Iranian authorities and that the welfare of British nationals detained in Iran “remains a priority”.
“We are deeply concerned by reports that two British nationals have been charged with espionage in Iran,” a spokesperson said.
“We continue to raise this case directly with the Iranian authorities. We are providing them with consular assistance and remain in close contact with their family members.”
The FCDO advises against travel to Iran for British and British-Iranian nationals.