Weirdly, none of the judges as the plaintiffs if they have given up their own use of fossil fuels, stopped eating meat, take the train and bus, ride bikes, and made their won lives carbon neutral
Landmark climate change legal hearing wraps up in The Hague
A landmark hearing into nation-states’ legal obligations over climate change wrapped up at the United Nations’ top court in The Hague on Friday. The outcome could have implications for the fight against climate change — and for the big polluters blamed for emitting most greenhouse gases.
The 15 judges at the International Court of Justice have heard evidence from 99 countries and dozens of organizations over the course of the two-week hearing.
They are trying to determine the legal obligations of states to tackle climate change and to repair the harm caused.
The judges’ advisory opinion is expected to be published next year.
Legal obligations? Perhaps nations shouldn’t be giving up their sovereignty on matters such as this to unelected judges, judges who can change nations on a whim, when they are supposed to be dealing with real issues.
“For young people, the demand for reparations is crucial for justice. We have inherited a planet in decline and face the grim prospect of passing on an even more degraded world to future generations,” said Vishal Prasad, campaign director for Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, which lobbied for the case to be heard.
“Equally clear is the demand for immediate cessation. If greenhouse gas emissions are not stopped, we are not just risking our future, we are welcoming its demise,” he said.
OK, let’s start by no longer allowing airplanes and cargo ships to go to the Pacific Ocean island nations. Let’s restrict the kiddies from buying fast fashion and taking lots of selfies and videos and uploading them. This is starting to look like, shockingly, a shakedown cash grab.
Countering that argument were several big polluting nations, including China, India, Britain and the United States. They argued that only climate treaties, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, confer any legal obligations on nation-states regarding climate change.
Except, Paris was set up in a way to avoid the Constitutional legal obligation of being a treaty, requiring approval of the US Senate. So, it has zero force of law.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion may simply reiterate existing climate deals such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, according to Renatus Otto Franz Derler, a climate law expert and editor-in-chief of the Cambridge International Law Journal.
“[Or] a second intermediate outcome would be that states have an obligation to fight climate change. The conduct that they’re doing, for example the petrostates, is in breach of general international law, so therefore state responsibility would apply,” Derler told VOA.
I’m betting they go with door number 2. Leftists love imposing their authority on Other People.
