cupure logo
trumptrumpsdeathepsteindonaldrevealsscotlandpolicegazawoman

The UN's Decision To Let Countries To Sue Each Other Over Climate Change Is A Regrettable Necessity

The UN's Decision To Let Countries To Sue Each Other Over Climate Change Is A Regrettable Necessity
A burned area in Souni village, Cyprus, during a massive wildfire on the southern side of the east Mediterranean island nation's Troodos mountain range, Thursday, July 24, 2025. Countries will now be able to sue one another over climate change, a top UN court announced in a landmark ruling this week.Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared on Wednesday that nations – including the UK – could be targeted over inaction when it comes to our changing environment.The non-binding ruling said that could even include the historic emissions of planet-warming gases.This is a major moment for the battle against climate change – and one that is sadly necessary as the fight to go green appears to have faded into the background in recent years.Why is the ruling significant?Developing countries particularly vulnerable to climate change were delighted.It means they could have the right to seek damages from nations who burned more fossil fuels in past if their country’s infrastructure or property has been destroyed, human health negatively impacted or agriculture hit due to the climate crisis.The ruling also noted they could receive compensation if restoration from the climate damage is not possible.However, when it comes to specific extreme weather events, the court confirmed the country in question will need to prove climate change caused it.The amount of damages any other nation may have to pay will likely vary.But, according to analysis from the scientific journal Nature, between 2000 and 2019 climate damage cost approximately $2.8 trillion – $16 million an hour – so no case is likely to be cheap.The case declared governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries, too – including subsidised fossil fuel companies.The ICJ opinion is advisory although in the past its decision have been adopted by governments around the world.Has there been any pushback?Developed nations including Britain, have already argued against the ruling.They allege existing climate agreements, such as the landmark UN Paris deal from 2015 where nations promised to limit temperatures hikes to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, are enough.But the judge Iwasawa Yuji rejected that claim. He also said they needed to produce the most ambitious plan to be in line with the Paris Agreement anyway.He then noted not every country is signed up to the 2015 climate treaty, but would still be covered by the ruling.The judge insisted that failure to reduce fossil fuel production and oil and gas subsidies will 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.”Why do we need this ruling?Despite endless warnings from scientists urging the world to turn away from fossil fuels before it’s too late, governments around the world are not acting fast enough.For instance, only 25 countries out of the 197 signed up to the UN submitted updated national climate plans to the UN by February this year.Human-caused global warming also reached 1.36C in 2024 – dangerously close to the limit of 1.5C. Beyond that level, scientists say the worst impacts of climate change will hit.Meanwhile, the continent of Africa is facing its deadliest climate crisis in more than a decade.As ActionAid Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said, this ruling is necessary because “powerful polluters don’t seem to care that their actions are destroying countries like mine, and intensifying burdens on women, who often bear the brunt of climate impacts”.She noted: “We can feel so helpless as we lose our homes, our livelihoods, and our safety to terrifying storms and rising seas.“This historic legal decision from the ICJ gives us hope that communities, especially women and girls on the frontlines of this crisis, will finally be able to fight back for justice and accountability.”Joana Setzer from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, also welcomed the unprecedented decision.“For the first time, the world’s highest court has made clear that states have a legal duty not only to prevent climate harm — but to fully repair it,” she said. “The ICJ’s advisory opinion affirms that states responsible for climate harm must provide full reparation to injured states, reinforcing the legal basis for climate justice.“This paves the way for more concrete demands around loss and damage, historical responsibility, and the rights of communities facing existential threats. It adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations.”But, crucially, the ruling needs to be implemented by countries around the world to work.And just how many of the most developed nations are going to agree to be sued?Related...Fixing UK Housing Must Be A Priority As We Adapt To Our New Climate Reality, MP Warns'This Earth Day, We Should Defy Trump's Climate Denial And Honour Pope Francis Instead'Nigel Farage Dubbed 'A Con Artist' For Suggesting Climate Change May Not Be Man-Made

Comments

Breaking news