Unfund the UN
/
“Hello? Hello? wake up in there, it’s time to leave” *
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases.
The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.
…. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019.
…. The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week, including in national courts outside of the ICJ.
Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.
…. Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.
He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system.
The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.
…. The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure.
…. It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful.
But previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour.
As well as compensation, the court also ruled that governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries.
It said specifically that subsidising the fossil fuel industry or approving new oil and gas licenses could be in breach of a country's obligations.
Developing countries are already exploring bringing new cases seeking compensation for historic contributions to climate change against richer, high emitting nations citing the ICJ opinion, according to lawyers the BBC spoke to.
If a country wants to bring a case back to the ICJ to make a ruling on compensation then it can only do so against countries which have agreed to its jurisdiction, which includes the likes of the UK, but not US or China.
But a case can be brought in any court globally, whether that be domestic or international, citing the ICJ opinion, explained Joie Chowdhury from CIEL.
So instead a country may choose to take their case not to the ICJ but a court where those countries are bound e.g. federal courts in the US.
But the question remains whether the ICJ opinion will be respected.
Trump to UN: “Sod off, Swampy”.
When asked about the decision, a White House spokesperson told BBC News:
"As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans."
Obviously, Two-New-Coal-Plants a Week-China will pay no heed to this, but U.S. corporations have to deal with U.S. Courts and their lawless judges, and that’s a danger.
* (Jesus has nothing to do with this story, but I’ve always been amused by the picture of him visiting the UN back in 1961)