Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNations who fail to curb fossil fuels could be ordered to pay reparations, top UN court rules
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/healthy-environment-is-a-human-right-top-un-court-rulesNations who fail to curb fossil fuels could be ordered to pay reparations, top UN court rules
Landmark opinion says those that fail to prevent climate harm could be liable for compensation and restitution
Isabella Kaminski in The Hague
Wed 23 Jul 2025 15.09 EDT
The worlds top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court resoundingly rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification.
Customary international law also applied, it said, including principles of sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities, equity, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. States also had a duty to work together to protect the climate, the court said, because uncoordinated action may not lead to a meaningful result.
The ICJ took aim at countries that are not part of climate change treaties, saying they still had to show that their climate policies and practices were consistent with other parts of international law. Donald Trump signed an order earlier this year to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement for the second time, and other rightwing leaders have threatened to do so as well.
As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Reuters in response to the opinion.
Because, as we all know, everyday Americans dont give a shit about other people even their own children and grandchildren.Landmark opinion says those that fail to prevent climate harm could be liable for compensation and restitution
Isabella Kaminski in The Hague
Wed 23 Jul 2025 15.09 EDT
The worlds top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court resoundingly rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification.
Customary international law also applied, it said, including principles of sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities, equity, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. States also had a duty to work together to protect the climate, the court said, because uncoordinated action may not lead to a meaningful result.
The ICJ took aim at countries that are not part of climate change treaties, saying they still had to show that their climate policies and practices were consistent with other parts of international law. Donald Trump signed an order earlier this year to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement for the second time, and other rightwing leaders have threatened to do so as well.
As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Reuters in response to the opinion.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Nations who fail to curb fossil fuels could be ordered to pay reparations, top UN court rules (Original Post)
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 24
OP
MrWowWow
(654 posts)1. Ecocide Tribunals?
Or.just a bit of toothless huff and puff?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,510 posts)2. The question I have is who's going to make us pay?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The White House February 6, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC. Neither country has ever recognized the ICCs jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war. The ICCs recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel. Furthermore, in 2002, the Congress enacted the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) to protect United States military personnel, United States officials, and officials and military personnel of certain allied countries against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party, stating, In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. (22 U.S.C. 7421(9)).
The United States unequivocally opposes and expects our allies to oppose any ICC actions against the United States, Israel, or any other ally of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICCs jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives.
The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICCs transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
(Blah, blah, blah oh and blah.)
(Expect similar actions against the ICJ.)The White House February 6, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC. Neither country has ever recognized the ICCs jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war. The ICCs recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel. Furthermore, in 2002, the Congress enacted the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) to protect United States military personnel, United States officials, and officials and military personnel of certain allied countries against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party, stating, In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. (22 U.S.C. 7421(9)).
The United States unequivocally opposes and expects our allies to oppose any ICC actions against the United States, Israel, or any other ally of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICCs jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives.
The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICCs transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
(Blah, blah, blah oh and blah.)