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 forumTop court says countries can sue each other for climate damage - this is what to expect
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/icj-climate-change-landmark-ruling-hague-b2795980.htmlTop court says countries can sue each other for climate damage this is what to expect
Legal experts tell Stuti Mishra a long-awaited International Court of Justice ruling provides a clear blueprint to hold major emitters accountable
Friday 25 July 2025 18:05 BST
The worlds top court has made it easier for governments to be held legally accountable for failing to tackle the climate crisis in an a move that experts say will have profound implications for climate-related lawsuits.
In its long-awaited legal opinion requested by small island nations facing existential threats from sea level rise the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said states have binding obligations to act on climate change under international law, and failing to do so could constitute a "wrongful act".
In an era of climate science denial and at a time when the United States, one of the worlds biggest polluters, is retreating from climate action under Donald Trump, ICJ judge Yuji Iwasawa called the climate crisis an urgent and existential threat and said that greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.
Sir David King, chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) and former UK scientific adviser, called it a moral reckoning, while former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson called it a turning point.
Legal experts tell Stuti Mishra a long-awaited International Court of Justice ruling provides a clear blueprint to hold major emitters accountable
Friday 25 July 2025 18:05 BST
The worlds top court has made it easier for governments to be held legally accountable for failing to tackle the climate crisis in an a move that experts say will have profound implications for climate-related lawsuits.
In its long-awaited legal opinion requested by small island nations facing existential threats from sea level rise the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said states have binding obligations to act on climate change under international law, and failing to do so could constitute a "wrongful act".
In an era of climate science denial and at a time when the United States, one of the worlds biggest polluters, is retreating from climate action under Donald Trump, ICJ judge Yuji Iwasawa called the climate crisis an urgent and existential threat and said that greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.
Sir David King, chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) and former UK scientific adviser, called it a moral reckoning, while former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson called it a turning point.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Top court says countries can sue each other for climate damage - this is what to expect (Original Post)
OKIsItJustMe
Friday
OP
mountain grammy
(28,049 posts)1. "moral reckoning" "turning point"?
Just words in America soon to be banned probably.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,510 posts)2. Merely repurposed, like "Fake News"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"