ICJ set to deliver historic opinion on states’ legal duty to prevent climate harm

uvalu delegation arrives for the United Nations' top court International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s public hearings in an advisory opinion case, that may become a reference point in defining countries' legal obligations to fight climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, on December 2 2024. (REUTERS/File)
Short Url
Updated 23 July 2025
Follow

ICJ set to deliver historic opinion on states’ legal duty to prevent climate harm

  • Opinion could establish legal foundations for climate reparations and accelerate fossil fuel phaseout
  • Small island nations led the push for the case, calling existing UN frameworks “inadequate”

THE HAGUE: The world’s top court will Wednesday deliver a seminal ruling laying out what legal obligations countries have to prevent climate change and whether polluters should pay up for the consequences.

It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say the judges’ opinion could reshape climate justice, with major impacts on laws around the world.

“I think it will be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we’re going through,” said Ralph Regenvanu, climate change minister of Vanuatu.

The Pacific island nation spearheaded the push for a court opinion amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations.

“We’ve been going through this for 30 years... It’ll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have,” Regenvanu told AFP.

The United Nations has tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions.

First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions “for present and future generations“?

Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states?

ICJ advisory opinions are not binding upon states and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court.

But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world’s highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies and ongoing legal battles.

Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme’s law division, said the ICJ should “clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis.”

“And that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes, and public debates,” he told AFP.

To help answer the two questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organizations around the world.

Analysts say Wednesday’s ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action.

Those bringing the cases are often from climate-vulnerable communities and countries, alarmed by the pace of progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels.

The Paris Agreement struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating.

In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court’s biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements.

In what was billed a “David Vs Goliath” battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet.

Major polluters including the US and India warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed.

The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime.

But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change’s devastating effects and that the ICJ’s opinion should be broader.

These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters.

“The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu.

These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs.

Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country’s history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges.

“Despite producing less than 0.01 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia,” said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu.

Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court, said climate change will become “catastrophic as the years go by, if we do not course-correct.”

“The urgency of the matter, the seriousness of why we’re here, and how important this is, is not lost upon all Pacific Islanders, all small island countries,” he told AFP

“That’s why we’re looking to the ICJ.”


Soldiers on the streets. What’s behind South Africa’s plan to deploy army in high-crime areas

Updated 1 sec ago
Follow

Soldiers on the streets. What’s behind South Africa’s plan to deploy army in high-crime areas

JOHANNESBURG: It’s an unusual move for the African continent’s leading democracy: South Africa’s president announced earlier this month that he will deploy the army to high-crime areas to fight the scourge of organized crime, gang violence and illegal mining.
President Cyril Ramaphosa said soldiers would take to the streets — in places that have some of the world’s highest rates of violent crime — to combat what he described as the “most immediate threat” to South Africa’s democracy and economic development.
He said the deployment would happen in three of the country’s nine provinces, without giving a timeline. Some critics, however, say the army deployment could be seen as an admission that Ramaphosa’s government is losing the battle.
A top tourist city marred by violence
With a population of some 3.8 million, the stunningly beautiful Cape Town is South Africa’s second-largest city and one of its top tourist attractions.
But the neighborhoods on its outskirts, known as the Cape Flats, are notorious for deadly gang violence.
Street gangs with names such as the Americans, the Hard Livings and the Terrible Josters have for years battled for control of the illegal drug trade, while also being involved in extortion rackets, prostitution and contract killings.
Bystanders, including children, are often caught in the crossfire and killed in gang-related shootings. According to the latest crime statistics, South Africa’s three police precincts with the most serious crime rates are all in and around Cape Town.
Ramaphosa said one part of the army would deploy in the Western Cape province, where Cape Town is located and which statistics say has around 90 percent of the country’s gang-related killings.
Two other provinces, he said, would also see troop deployments: Gauteng, which is home to Johannesburg, South Africa’s biggest city, and the Eastern Cape province.
Illegal mining run by organized crime syndicates
The outskirts of Johannesburg and the wider Gauteng province are dotted with abandoned mine shafts and authorities there have long grappled with illegal gold mining.
They say the mining gang, known as zama zamas, are typically run by heavily armed crime syndicates, brutal in protecting their operations. They use “informal miners” recruited from desperate and impoverished communities to go into the shafts, searching for leftover precious deposits.
These gangs are often connected to high-profile violence, including a 2022 case that shocked South Africa when around 80 alleged illegal miners were accused of gang raping eight women who were part of a music video shoot at an abandoned mine.
Last year, a standoff between police and illegal miners in an abandoned mine left at least 87 miners dead after police took a hard-line approach and cut off their food supplies in an attempt to force them out.
The illegal miners are often involved in other crimes in nearby communities, analysts say, and turf battles between rival gangs have forced people to leave their homes and seek safety elsewhere.
Authorities say there are an estimated 30,000 illegal miners in South Africa, operating in some of its 6,000 abandoned mine shafts.
The government has noted an increase in illegal mining, which it estimates is worth more than $4 billion a year in gold lost to criminal syndicates.
The trade is believed to be predominantly controlled by migrants from neighboring Lesotho, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique, stoking anger among South African communities against both the criminal bosses and foreigners living in the local community.
Previous army deployments linked to apartheid
Ramaphosa is well aware that South Africans old enough to remember the years of forced racial segregation under the apartheid system, which ended in 1994, likely will recall images of troops deployed to suppress pro-democracy protests.
Mindful of that painful past, he said it was important not to deploy the army “without a good reason.”
But he said it has now “become necessary due to a surge in violent organized crime that threatens the safety of our people and the authority of the state.”
Ramaphosa sought to calm concerns by saying the army would operate under police command.
There have been other recent deployments of South African troops. In 2023, soldiers fanned out into the streets after a series of truck burnings raised concerns over wider public disorder. And around 25,000 troops were deployed in 2021 to quell violent riots sparked by the imprisonment of former President Jacob Zuma.
South Africa also used soldiers to enforce strict lockdown rules during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
Crime experts have expressed concern over Ramaphosa’s latest deployment plans, insisting the army is not a long-term solution to fighting crime and soldiers are not experts in domestic law enforcement.
Firoz Cachalia, the country’s police minister, has backed Ramaphosa and insisted the army will act in support of police and “their operations in particular locations.”
He said the deployment is time-limited and meant to stabilize areas “where people are losing their lives” every day.