Latest News
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.
But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult.
The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.
It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.
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.
One of those students, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga, was in the Hague to hear the decision.
“I’m lost for words. This is so exciting. There’s a ton of emotions rushing through us. This is a win we take proudly back home to our communities,” he told BBC News.
“Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.
“This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”
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.
Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem.
But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.
On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.
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 ruling is a watershed legal moment,” said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
“With today’s authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation,” she added.
A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said it was “taking time” to look at the opinion before commenting in detail, but added:
“Tackling climate change is and will remain an urgent UK and global priority. Our position remains that this is best achieved through international commitment to the UN’s existing climate treaties and mechanisms.”
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 added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation.
This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
“This is a huge win for climate vulnerable states. It’s a huge win for Vanuatu, which led this case and is going to change the face of climate advocacy,” said barrister Jennifer Robinson at Doughty Street Chambers, who represented Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands.
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.
During the evidence sessions in December, the court heard from dozens of Pacific Islanders who have been displaced as a result of rising sea level, caused by climate change.
The Marshall Islands highlighted that the costs for their island to adapt to climate change are $9 billion.
“That is $9 billion the Marshall Islands does not have. Climate change is a problem they have not caused, but they are forced to consider relocating their capital,” said Ms Robinson.
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.
“[The ICJ] is an institution that is subject to geopolitics – and it relies on states adhering to its judgements, it doesn’t have a police force,” said Harj Narulla, a climate barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, which also represented the Solomon Islands.
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.”
(BBC)
Latest News
Myanmar votes as military holds first election since 2021 coup
Polls have opened in Myanmar’s first general election since the country’s military toppled Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government in a 2021 coup.
The heavily restricted election on Sunday is taking place in about a third of the Southeast Asian nation’s 330 townships, with large areas inaccessible amid a raging civil war between the military and an array of opposition forces.
Following the initial phase, two rounds of voting will be held on January 11 and January 25, while voting has been cancelled in 65 townships altogether.
“This means that at least 20 percent of the country is disenfranchised at this stage,” said Al Jazeera’s Tony Cheng, reporting from Myanmar’s largest city, Yangon. “The big question is going to be here in the cities, what is the turnout going to be like?”
In Yangon, polling stations opened at 6am on Sunday (23:30 GMT, Saturday), and once the sun was up, “we’ve seen a relatively regular flow of voters come in,” said Cheng.
“But the voters are generally middle aged, and we haven’t seen many young people. When you look at the ballot, there are only few choices. The vast majority of those choices are military parties,” he said.
The election has been derided by critics – including the United Nations, some Western countries and human rights groups – as an exercise that is not free, fair or credible, with anti-military political parties not competing.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who was deposed by the military months after her National League for Democracy (NLD) won the last general election by a landslide in 2020, remains in detention, and her party has been dissolved.
The pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) is widely expected to emerge as the largest party.
The military, which has governed Myanmar since 2021, said the vote is a chance for a new start, politically and economically, for the nation of 55 million people, with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing consistently framing the polls as a path to reconciliation.
Dressed in civilian clothes, the military chief cast his ballot shortly after polling stations opened in Naypyidaw, the country’s capital. He then held up an ink-soaked figure and smiled widely.
Voters must dip a finger into indelible ink after casting a ballot to ensure they do not vote more than once.
He told reporters afterwards that the elections are free and fair, and the vote was not tarnished because it is being held by the military.
The state-run Global New Light of Myanmar, in an opinion piece on Sunday, said the poll would open a new chapter and “serve as bridge for the people of Myanmar to reach a prosperous future”.
Earlier, it reported that election observers from Russia, China, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua and India have flown into the country ahead of the polls.
But with fighting still raging in many areas of the country, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Tom Andrews called on the international community to reject the military-run poll.
“An election organised by a junta that continues to bomb civilians, jail political leaders and criminalise all forms of dissent is not an election – it is a theatre of the absurd performed at gunpoint,” Andrews said in a statement.
“This is not a pathway out of Myanmar’s crisis. It is a ploy that will perpetuate repression, division and conflict,” he said.
The civil war, which was triggered by the 2021 coup, has killed an estimated 90,000 people, displaced 3.5 million and left some 22 million people in need of humanitarian assistance.
According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, more than 22,000 people are currently detained for political offences.
In downtown Yangon, stations were cordoned off overnight, with security staff posted outside, while armed officers guarded traffic intersections. Election officials set up equipment and installed electronic voting machines, which are being used for the first time in Myanmar.
The machines will not allow write-in candidates or spoiled ballots.
Among a trickle of early voters in the city was 45-year-old Swe Maw, who dismissed international criticism.
“It’s not an important matter,” he told the AFP news agency. “There are always people who like and dislike.”
In the central Mandalay region, 40-year-old Moe Moe Myint said it was “impossible for this election to be free and fair”.
“How can we support a junta-run election when this military has destroyed our lives?” she told AFP. “We are homeless, hiding in jungles, and living between life and death,” she added.
The second round of polling will take place in two weeks’ time, before the third and final round on January 25.
Dates for counting votes and announcing election results have not been declared.
Analysts say the military’s attempt to establish a stable administration in the midst of an expansive conflict is fraught with risk, and that significant international recognition is unlikely for any military-controlled government.
“The outcome is hardly in doubt: a resounding USDP victory and a continuation of army rule with a thin civilian veneer,” wrote Richard Horsey, an analyst at the International Crisis Group in a briefing earlier this month.
“But it will in no way ease Myanmar’s political crisis or weaken the resolve of a determined armed resistance. Instead, it will likely harden political divisions and prolong Myanmar’s state failure. The new administration, which will take power in April 2026, will have few better options, little credibility and likely no feasible strategy for moving the country in a positive direction,” he added.

[Aljazeera]
Latest News
Interment of singer Latha Walpola at Borella on Wednesday [31st]
Family sources have confirmed that the interment of singer Latha Walpola will be performed at the General Cemetery Borella on Wednesday (31 December).
Foreign News
Ex-Malaysia PM Najib Razak given 15-year jail term over state funds scandal
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has been jailed for 15 years for abuse of power and money laundering, in his second major trial for a multi-billion-dollar state funds scandal.
Najib, 72, was accused of misappropriating nearly 2.3 billion Malaysian ringgit ($569m; £422m) from the nation’s sovereign wealth fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
On Friday afternoon a judge found him guilty in four charges of abuse of power and 21 charges of money laundering.
The former PM is already in jail after he was convicted years ago in another case related to 1MDB.
Friday’s verdict comes after seven years of legal proceedings, which saw 76 witnesses called to the stand.
The verdict, delivered in Malaysia’s administrative capital Putrajaya, is the second blow in the same week to the embattled former leader, who has been imprisoned since 2022.
He was handed four 15-year sentences on abuse of power charges, as well as five years each on 21 money laundering charges. The jail terms run concurrently under Malaysian law.
On Monday, the court rejected his application to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
But the former prime minister retains a loyal base of supporters, who claim that he’s a victim of unfair rulings and who have showed up at his trials calling for his release.
On Friday, dozens of people gathered outside the court in Putrajaya in support of Najib.
The 1MDB scandal made headlines across the world when it came to light a decade ago, embroiling prominent figures from Malaysia to Goldman Sachs and Hollywood.
Investigators estimated that $4.5bn was siphoned from the state-owned wealth fund into private pockets, including Najib’s.
Najib’s lawyers claim that he had been misled by his advisers – in particular the financier Jho Low, who has maintained his innocence but remains at large.
But the argument has not convinced Malaysia’s courts, which previously found Najib guilty of embezzlement in 2020.
That year, Najib was convicted of abuse of power, money laundering and breach of trust over 42 million ringgit ($10m; £7.7m) transferred from SRC International – a former unit of 1MDB – into his private accounts.
He was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but saw his jail term halved last year.
The latest case concerns a larger sum of money, also tied to 1MDB, received by his personal bank account in 2013. Najib said he had believed the money was a donation from the late Saudi King Abdullah – a claim rejected by the judge on Friday.
Separately Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, was sentenced to ten years in jail in 2022 for bribery. She is free on bail pending an appeal against her conviction.
The scandal has had profound repercussions on Malaysian politics. In 2018 it led to a historic election loss for Najib’s Barisan Nasional coalition, which had governed the country since its independence in 1957.
Now, the recent verdicts has highlighted fissures in Malaysia’s ruling coalition, which includes Najib’s party United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).
Najib’s failed house arrest bid on Monday was met with disappointment from his allies but celebrated by his critics within the same coalition.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called for politicians on all sides to respect the court’s decisions.
Former Malaysian lawmaker Tony Pua told the BBC’s Newsday programme that the verdict would “send a message” to the country’s leaders, that “you can get caught for corruption even if you’re number one in the country like the prime minister”.
But Cynthia Gabriel, founding director of Malaysia’s Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, argued that the country has made little headway in anti-corruption efforts despite the years of reckoning after the 1MDB scandal.
Public institutions have not been strengthened enough to reassure Malaysians that “the politicians they put into power would actually serve their interests” instead of “their own pockets”, she told Newsday.
“Grand corruption continues in different forms”, she added. “We don’t know at all if another 1MDB could occur, or may have already occurred.”
(BBC)
-
News6 days agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
News4 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
News7 days agoAir quality deteriorating in Sri Lanka
-
News7 days agoCardinal urges govt. not to weaken key socio-cultural institutions
-
Features6 days agoGeneral education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?
-
Opinion7 days agoRanwala crash: Govt. lays bare its true face
-
News6 days agoSuspension of Indian drug part of cover-up by NMRA: Academy of Health Professionals
-
News7 days agoCID probes unauthorised access to PNB’s vessel monitoring system
