Select Language:
Certainly! Here’s a revised, unique, human-written, and plagiarism-free version of your content in American English:
A wildfire blazes close to a house on the outskirts of Valmojado, Spain, on July 17, 2025. — Reuters
Highlights:
- Wealthy nations advocate for UN treaties to define global responsibilities.
- South and small island nations push for strong, enforceable measures to reduce emissions.
- Legal experts assert that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion will carry substantial legal and political influence.
The UN’s highest court emphasized “the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change” today as it commenced the delivery of an advisory opinion concerning nations’ legal duties to act on climate issues. This non-binding judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), often called the World Court, could shape the future of global climate policy.
“Human activities are unequivocally responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, which cross borders and affect every region,” stated Judge Yuji Iwasawa during the proceedings. The court has yet to release its final conclusions as the opinion continues to be read.
Ahead of the ruling, climate advocates gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: “What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!”
Though the decision isn’t legally binding, experts say the court’s advisory opinion will carry significant legal and political weight, setting a precedent that future climate litigation cannot ignore.
Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, commented, “This could become one of the most consequential legal rulings of our era because it addresses core issues of climate justice and international responsibility.”
The questions posed to the judges by the UN General Assembly centered on what responsibilities nations have under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and what legal consequences follow if countries harm the climate system.
During two weeks of hearings last December, wealthier nations in the Global North argued that existing treaties, like the 2015 Paris Agreement, should underpin their responsibilities—even though many of these agreements are non-binding. Conversely, developing countries and small island states called for stronger, legally enforceable commitments, urging major emitters to reduce emissions and provide financial support.
The Paris Agreement
In 2015, nearly 200 countries committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F). However, the promise hasn’t kept emissions in check. The UN’s recent “Emissions Gap Report” warns that current policies could lead to a rise of over 3°C (5.4°F) by 2100, far above the target.
As efforts to hold corporations and governments accountable grow, climate-related lawsuits are surging—almost 3,000 cases across nearly 60 countries, according to June data from the Grantham Research Institute in London.
These legal efforts have yielded mixed outcomes. For example, a German court dismissed a decade-long dispute involving a Peruvian farmer and energy giant RWE, yet legal experts see it as a victory that could inspire further climate litigation.
Recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which oversees 20 Latin American and Caribbean nations, issued an advisory opinion urging member states to cooperate more effectively to combat climate change.
Supporters believe Wednesday’s court opinion could serve as a pivotal moment—even if it’s only advisory—by bolstering efforts to hold nations accountable for pollution and emissions.
Vishal Prasad, a law student who advocated for climate action in Vanuatu, explained, “The court can affirm that inaction related to climate change isn’t just a policy failure but a violation of international law.”
While nations could technically disregard an ICJ ruling, legal experts say they are hesitant to do so, given the authority and the commitments already made to international treaties.
Would you like me to further refine or expand any part of this content?
ChatGPT
Perplexity
Gemini AI
Grok AI
