The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will on Monday begin considering a range of punitive measures the United Nations can impose against countries that flout directives to protect the environment. [emphasis, links added]
Activists hope the ICJ judges' legal opinion will have a profound impact on the “climate change” issue that will be heard for the first time in 2023According to Breitbart News.
But others noticed UN-backed request for non-binding advisory opinion will have no impact– and The U.N.'s top court could take months or even years to rule Countries such as the United States do not officially recognize the organization, but they go their own ways.
The International Court of Justice is the highest judicial body of the United Nations.
It only applies to cases between state actors, meaning states can become litigants and participate in trials, but individuals and businesses cannot.
It has no enforcement mechanism, so those involved in its adjudication often simply ignore its existence.
The hearing at the Peace Palace comes just days after a hard-fought climate deal was negotiated at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, which stipulates: Developed countries must provide at least US$300 billion per year for climate finance by 2035.
The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution last year that raised two key questions for the ICJ judges, AFP reported.
First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from greenhouse gas emissions?
Second, what are the legal consequences under these obligations if a state “through its actions and omissions has caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”?
The second issue also relates to the legal responsibility of states for harm caused to smaller, more vulnerable states and their peoples.
Reuters reported that climate lawsuits were on the rise earlier this year, Europe's top human rights court has ruled that the Swiss government violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change.
But it also dismissed two other cases, pointing to the complexity of the growing wave of climate laws.
Read more at Breitbart News
