Because the ICJ has totally shown themselves to not be Progressive nutjobs so far. I utterly expect them to rule in the climate cult’s favor, which should make things fun in Europe
5 Facts To Know About The International Court’s Climate Change Hearings
On Monday, December 2, the International Court of Justice will begin hearings on an Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Over 100 countries and organizations will present in 30-minute increments over two weeks. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the ICJ will determine the existing financial liability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent climate change.
Here are five key facts to know going into the hearings.
The International Court of Justice was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court….
Um, so, what does this scam suit have to do with resolving disputes between countries?
Why is the Court looking at climate change?
In addition to handling disputes between countries, the ICJ can also issue advisory opinions at the request of the UN General Assembly. Advisory opinions analyze legal questions and give guidance for how the Court interprets the existing law. It is a tool to understand how the Court might handle a similar issue in the future. Advisory opinions do carry extra weight, but they are not binding.
Scam
The UNGA posed to questions to the ICJ:
“What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations”?
“What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to: (i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change? (ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?”
Whatever those obligations are, that’s based on each individual nation, not some unhinged court which is also anti-Semitic.
This indicates the ICJ is looking beyond the black letter language of the law and exploring outside considerations. If the Court follows this path, it may find that climate change is a human right. Depending on where they find the language, it may trigger protections under the ICC as well as civil liability.
And that is surely what they will rule. And then they’ll all take fossil fueled travel.
Putting the International Court of Justice (sarc) in charge of determining the “obligations” of states regarding the climate change fraud is like putting Dowd in charge of maintaining free and fair elections. No amount of evidence will convince them to not vote with the communists.