Connect with us

Latest News

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change

Published

on

Governments and climate campaigners went to the Hague on Wednesday to hear the court's opinion (BBC)

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)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Scotland face West Indies with a chance to reopen World Cup wounds

Published

on

By

Scotland captain Kathryn Bryce is in good form with both bat and ball [Cricinfo]

Scotland take on West Indies in Leeds at 18:30 local time (17:30 GMT) in Group 2 of the Women’s T20 World Cup 2026.  Both teams won their opening matches in this competition – Shemaine Campbelle’s unbeaten 90 aided by New Zealand’s dropped catches saw West Indies emerging victorious, while a strong all round performance from Scotland brushed aside Ireland.

Scotland and West Indies have played each other only three times across formats – their lone T20I meeting coming at the last World Cup. Crucially, though, Scotland dealt West Indies perhaps their biggest blow in recent times with their win in the Women’s ODI World Cup Qualifier last year. Scotland staved off an all-round show from Hayley Matthews to eke out an 11-run win, denying West Indies a chance to qualify for the ODI World Cup last year.

Coming on the back of a comfortable win, expect Scotland to go in unchanged.

Scotland (probable XI): Darcey Carter, Katherine Fraser, Kathryn Bryce (capt),  Sarah Bryce (wk),  Ailsa Lister, Megan McColl, Priyanaz Chatterji, Rachel Slater,  Chloe Abel,  Kirstie Gordon,  Gabriella Fontenla

West Indies head coach Shane Deitz had said that Chinelle Henry was close to playing their opening game. If fit, she can add heft to their lower-middle order as well as the bowling department.

West Indies (probable XI): Qiana Joseph, Hayley Matthews (capt),  Shemaine Campbelle (wk),  Deandra Dottin,  Jahzara Claxton/Chinelle Henry,  Jannillea Glasgow,  Aaliyah Alleyne, Zaida James,  Shawnisha Hector,  Afy Fletcher, Karishma Ramharack

Players to watch:

Kathryn Bryce: The Scotland captain had a big role to play in their first win at this T20 World Cup. She scored a rapid half-century and picked up two wickets against Ireland. Bryce has picked up at least one wicket in 11 of the 12 T20Is she has played this year, apart from being consistent with the bat. Her experience of playing regularly in England’s domestic circuit could be key for Scotland against West Indies.

Deandra Dottin: She was at her brutal best in the last iteration of the T20 World Cup (strike rate 165.54, average 39.4, 12 sixes) but since the start of 2025, Dottin has only one T20I half-century at a strike rate of 122.84. Dottin had scored an unbeaten 15-ball 28 the last time she faced Scotland. Can she find her mojo back against them?

While Australia’s bowlers bulldozed Bangladesh, India’s batters made merry to show the batting-friendly nature of the surface in Leeds. Weather wise, the evening is likely to become cooler, with temperatures ranging from 19 to 22 degrees Celsius. There is no forecast of rain, even though it grew slightly overcast towards the start of Netherlands’ innings on Wednesday.

[Cricinfo]

Continue Reading

Latest News

Moscow hit by largest Ukrainian attack since start of Russia’s full-scale war

Published

on

By

Moscow has come under the largest Ukrainian attack since the start of the full-scale war, with close to 200 drones hitting targets around the Russian capital and setting columns of thick smoke billowing high into the sky.

Seventeen people were wounded in the Moscow region, according to local governor Andrei Vorobyov.

Almost 1,000 drones and four Ukrainian cruise missiles were intercepted and destroyed across the country in 24 hours, Russia’s defence ministry was quoted as saying. An oil depot was struck in the southern Rostov region, where one person was killed.

Volodymyr Zelensky said Kyiv had once again hit the Moscow region with “long-range sanctions” – a euphemism for Ukrainian long-distance strikes on Russia.

“It’s time to end this war, and Russia must take the necessary steps in diplomacy,” he added.

He said the massive drone strike was in response to last week’s Russian attack on Kyiv, which set a major religious landmark ablaze.

“We don’t want this war and have never wanted it,” Zelensky said. “But if Ukraine burns, your Moscow will burn too.”

Fires broke out as the Kapotnya refinery in south-east Moscow was hit for the third time in a month and the second time this week, colouring the sky black with smoke. Numerous videos showed the lid of a large oil storage tank blown dozens of metres into the air by the force of an explosion.

A nearby shopping centre was also burning, reportedly after drone debris fell on the building, and several residential high-rise blocks were evacuated.

Moscow’s four airports were temporarily shut and more than 500 flights were cancelled or delayed.

Although local authorities across Russia have banned publication of images of the aftermath of drone strikes, dozens of videos were posted on social media showing drones flying across the sky in broad daylight and explosions over industrial areas on the outskirts of Moscow.

Four and a half years since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war of attrition on the front line in Ukraine grinds on, out of sight for many ordinary Russians.

Kyiv’s long-range strikes on targets across Russia as well as Moscow and St Petersburg are an indication of Zelensky’s aim of “bringing the war home” to Russians.

Drone attacks on Moscow – about 500km (310 miles) from the Ukrainian border – have become more frequent as Kyiv has developed its long-range capabilities. Ukraine’s first successful drone strikes reached the Russian capital in spring 2023, although they were sporadic and rarely involved more than a handful of drones.

Since then, extensive air defences have been set up around Moscow – but the number of drones used by Ukraine in its attacks has also multiplied and some have penetrated those defences.

Meanwhile, Russia launched more than 200 drones and multiple ballistic missiles at Ukraine overnight, Kyiv said.

Vladimir Putin, who is hosting southeast Asian leaders for a summit in the central city of Kazan, has not commented on the large-scale attack on the Russian capital.

Writing on X, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha said: “One of the most popular questions asked by Muscovites this morning is ‘What is going on?'”

“I can answer. Your country started a war of aggression against ours. For years, it has been killing our people,” Sybiha wrote.

“Now that you know what’s going on, ask Putin when he is planning to end it.”

[BBC]

Continue Reading

Business

Oil prices fall, stocks rally as US, Iran sign framework to end war

Published

on

By

Vessels seen from Musandam, Oman, on June 16, 2026 [Aljazeera]

Oil prices have dropped following the United States and Iran’s signing of an interim peace agreement, resuming a slide interrupted by US President Donald Trump’s warning that he could restart his military campaign.

Brent crude fell 2.3 percent on Thursday in Asia, returning the international benchmark to near to where it was 24 hours previously

Brent futures for delivery in August stood at $77.73 as of 05:30 GMT, only about 7 percent higher than before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

After several days of declines, Brent briefly spiked above $81 a barrel on Wednesday after Trump warned that the US could “go right back to dropping bombs” on Iran if it doesn’t “behave”.

Shrugging off losses on Wall Street overnight, Asian stock markets rallied on renewed optimism for an end to nearly four months of disruption to global energy supply chains.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 and South Korea’s Kospi both hit all-time highs, gaining more than 2 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively.

Taiwan’s Taiex rose as much as 1.3 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index bucked the trend, dropping 1.7 percent.

US stock futures, which are traded outside of regular market hours and often foreshadow the next day’s performance, climbed, with those tied to the benchmark S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite climbing about 0.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.

“Putting aside the contents of the MoU, markets are likely to be welcoming the fact that both the US and Iran signed it sooner than initially expected,” Norihiro Yamaguchi, lead economist for Japan at Oxford Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“The timing is also supportive, as the major central bank policy meetings have now passed, reducing a key source of uncertainty,” Yamaguchi said.

“For Asian markets, the renewed strength in US semiconductor stocks should provide an additional boost, given the region’s heavy exposure to tech shares.”

k
A man walks next to an electronic quotation board displaying the Nikkei 225 stock prices on the Tokyo Stock Exchange in Tokyo, Japan, on June 18, 2026 [Aljazeera]

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the negotiations between Washington and Tehran, said on Wednesday that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) had entered into force with “immediate effect”.

Sharif said Iran would “instantly reopen” the Strait of Hormuz and the US would “immediately” lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, though it was not immediately clear if the announcement had any effect on boosting maritime traffic in the critical waterway.

Shipping in the strait has been reduced to a fraction of peacetime levels due to the threat of Iranian missiles, drones and mines, as well as the US blockade.

The blockage has resulted in an estimated daily shortfall of 14 million barrels in the global oil market, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Fabien Yip, a market analyst at IG in Sydney, said that while markets have responded to the MoU with optimism, the relief is “largely priced in” as practical issues such as the backlog of vessels in the Gulf and mine clearing operations must still be resolved.

“There is a notable divergence between sentiment and physical supply – production ramp-up and logistics normalisation will take time,” Yip told Al Jazeera.

While more than 500 vessels are estimated to be waiting to exit the Gulf through the strait, shipping companies have expressed concern about the lack of clarity on how to ensure the safety of their vessels and crews in the channel.

In a statement earlier this week, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), one of the world’s largest associations for shipowners, said the US and Iran had yet to provide information about “key aspects such as timings and safe routes”.

“Due to lack of details and a history of overly optimistic reassurances, we believe the security situation for the shipping industry remains volatile, and we still consider it very risky for ships to commence transits at this point,” Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at BIMCO, said in a statement on Monday, responding to the initial announcement of the MoU.

“We advise shipowners to continue doing thorough risk assessments and appeal to all parties to put the safety of seafarers first.”

[Aljazeera]

Continue Reading

Trending