"On December 2, the International Court of Justice will begin hearings on an Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Over 100 countries and organizations will present in 30-minute increments over two weeks. At the request of the UN General Assembly, the #ICJ will determine the existing #FinancialLiability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent #ClimateChange."
"First, what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the planet’s climate system? Second, what are the legal consequences for countries whose actions or inactions cause significant harm to the environment?
The #ICJ’s advisory opinion, though not binding, is expected to shape future #climate litigation at national and international levels."
https://newscentral.africa/world-court-to-debate-legal-framework-for-climate-responsibility/
"The US and China, the world’s biggest emitters, will make statements too, even though neither fully recognises the court’s authority.
The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by #Vanuatu."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-icj-court-told
#ICJ #Climate
Internationally wrongful act
"The #Philippine government asserted before the International Court of Justice (#ICJ) on Tuesday, December 3, that countries most responsible for driving #ClimateChange are committing an "internationally wrongful act."
It called on these nations to provide reparations, marking one of the Marcos Jr. administration’s boldest statements on climate justice."
Fury as US argues against climate obligations at top UN court
“The US is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights and reject #climate justice.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/04/us-climate-crisis-legal-court
The US does not recognise the authority of the court.
#ICJ
"The big issue is: are you liable for the continuing consequences of your past emissions?"
@CelloMomOnCars
Seems to me that if you do something knowing there will be bad consequences, you should be liable for those consequences whatever the timescale in which they materialise.
Oil companies, for example, have known for well over half a century that they were causing climate change. That should make them liable for the effects of their products. The sam3 argument could be made about Governments that continue to subsidise fossil fuel production.
I wonder if this argument will be brought up at the ICJ. If so, that would set a ground-shifting precedence.
So the US , for example, would have no responsibility over its emissions up to, say, 1988, when James Hansen testified about climate change in Congress. After that they would be responsible.
Sounds more practically workable than the traffic laws which hold you responsible whether or not you know about them, e.g. no turn on red.
@KimSJ @CelloMomOnCars Exactly right. These businesses only thrive because they are able to externalize their costs onto the government, taxpayers, and people who breathe and drink water.