International Court of Justice to deliver landmark climate ruling

Vanuatu has pushed the UN to ask the International Court of Justice to answer questions on countries’ obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet. Above, cyclone-hit Port Vila, Vanuatu on March 1, 2023. (French Embassy in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands/AFP)
Short Url
Updated 21 July 2025
Follow

International Court of Justice to deliver landmark climate ruling

  • Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law
  • Landmark ruling expected to have major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world

THE HAGUE: The top United Nations court will on Wednesday hand down a landmark global legal blueprint for tackling climate change that also sets out top polluters’ responsibilities toward the countries suffering most.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries’ obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet.

Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world.

Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases.

“It will be the compass the world needs to course correct,” said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.

“It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,” said Prasad.

But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it.

The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions.

First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions?

Second, what are the legal consequences for states which “by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?”

The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations.

This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean.

In what was termed a “David versus Goliath” battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case.

The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions — the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance.

“This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,” said Vanuatu’s representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings.

“The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,” he told the 15-judge panel.

Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries’ obligations were not necessary.

US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was “the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change.”

Taylor urged the court “to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime.”

Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit.

“The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,” said Luther Rangreji.

The United States under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement.

But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change’s devastating effects.

“As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop.

“This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,” said John Silk from the Marshall Islands.

After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather.

The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more.

“This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,” said Fiji’s representative Luke Daunivalu.

“Our people... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create.

“They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.”


US intel did not suggest a preemptive strike from Iran before US-Israeli attacks, AP sources say

Updated 02 March 2026
Follow

US intel did not suggest a preemptive strike from Iran before US-Israeli attacks, AP sources say

  • The official said a variety of factors created a golden opportunity to take out much of Iran’s leadership

WASHINGTON: Trump administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings Sunday that US intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the US, three people familiar with the briefings said.
The administration officials instead acknowledged there was a more general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces, two of the people said. The third person, however, said the administration emphasized that Iran’s missiles and proxy forces posed an imminent threat to US personnel and allies in the region.
The officials did not provide any clarity about what would happen next in Iran after the joint US-Israeli operation, the two people said. All three people insisted on anonymity to discuss details that have not been made public.
The information conveyed to the congressional staff contrasts with the message from President Donald Trump. “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” he said in a video message after launching strikes on Iran.
Senior Trump administration officials, who like others were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, had told reporters Saturday that there were indicators that the Iranians could launch a preemptive attack.
The White House and Pentagon did not immediately reply to requests for comment on Sunday night. Details of the briefing were first reported by Politico.
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will brief the full membership of Congress on the US military operation against Iran, the White House said Sunday. Rubio also was slated to brief Hill leadership Monday, the same day Hegseth and Caine are planning a press conference about the operation.
Three strikes, three locations, within a single minute
The military operation came after authorities from Israel and the US spent weeks tracking the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and shared information that allowed the strikes to be carried out in a surprise daylight attack, according to an Israeli military official and another person familiar with the operation.
The eventual barrage of US-Israeli attacks on Iran came so quickly that they were nearly simultaneous — with three strikes in three locations hitting within a single minute — killing Khamenei and some 40 senior figures, including the head of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard and the country’s defense minister, the Israeli military official said Sunday.
The official said a variety of factors created a golden opportunity to take out much of Iran’s leadership, like weeks of training and monitoring the movements of senior figures as well as intelligence in real-time before the attack began that key targets were gathered together.
Striking by day also gave an additional element of surprise, said the official, who said so many major, rapid-fire strikes were critical to keep key officials from fleeing after the first strike. The official said Israel closely cooperated with its US counterparts and had used a similar tactic at the beginning of last June’s war — which resulted in the killing of several senior Iranian figures.
The official also noted Khamenei having posted defiant tweets taunting President Donald Trump in the days before the attack.
The details about the strikes came as the conflict entered its second day, with Trump saying in a video message Sunday that he expected it would continue until “all of our objectives are achieved.” He did not spell out what those objectives were.
The Republican president also said the US military and its partners hit hundreds of targets in Iran, including Revolutionary Guard facilities, Iranian air defense systems and nine warships, “all in a matter of literally minutes.”
CIA had long tracked top Iranian leaders
Before the attacks, the CIA had for months tracked the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including Khamenei.
The intelligence was shared with Israeli officials, and the timing of the strikes was adjusted in part because of that information about the Iranian leaders’ location, according to the person familiar with the planning.
The intelligence-sharing between US and Israel reflects the preparation that went into the strikes, which threw the future of the Islamic Republic into uncertainty and raised the risk of escalating regional conflict.
The US regularly shares intelligence with allies including Israel. Those partnerships, and the accuracy of the intelligence they yield, is often critical not only to the success of a military operation but also to the public’s support for it.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the committee, told The Associated Press that, historically, “our working relationship with the Mossad and Israel is really strong.” Mossad is the Israeli spy agency.
Warner said he has serious concerns about the justification for the strikes, Trump’s long-term plans for the conflict and the risks that US service members will face. The military announced Sunday that three American troops had been killed in the Iran operation.
“No tears will be shed over their leadership being eliminated, but always the question is: OK, what next?” Warner said.
Iran has signaled it’s open to talks with the US
A senior White House official said Iran’s “new potential leadership” has suggested it is open to talks with the United States. That official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations, said Trump has indicated he’s “eventually” willing to talk but that for now the military operation “continues unabated.”
The official did not say who the potential new Iranian leaders are or how they made their alleged willingness to talk known. Separately, Trump told The Atlantic that he planned to speak with Iran’s new leadership.
“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” he said Sunday, declining comment on the timing.