Top UN Court Says Countries Can Sue Each Other Over Climate Change (bbc.com) 51
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. BBC: But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult. The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.
They Can Sue (Score:5, Insightful)
They can sue. They can even win. Good luck collecting or forcing the loser to action.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really a fundamentally broken system.
What we're going to see here is the last-hold out for compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the UNSC- The UK- changing to discretionary jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we have to remember that the UN by design has to be "broken" in that way or there would simply be no membership at all especially from the power players (like how the US never joined the League of Nations post WWI)
That's the tricky bit about international politics, eventually you will run out of nonviolent binding mechanisms. If the UN could threaten military force or bind them really at all then what nation would choose to be a member?
It's am imperfect system but is it better than no system? That
Re: (Score:2)
Those that refused membership would be those who were confident that the world wouldn't realistically be able to band together to force them. That definitely includes some of the "power players".
I disagree that it must be broken by design.
The threshold for susceptibility to world-organized action is a moving target, particularly once trade becomes involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and in the nuclear age what good is an international diplomatic consortium that doesn't include those people.
If the UN could bind the USA or China to their decrees do you really think either of those nations would voluntarily enjoin with it? That's a bit overly optimistic. Why do we think Russia is still on the SC? Because they have the power to stop the UN from sanctioning them. They lose that power then they are out and the UN has zero ability to do anything now.
I am not saying that the UN is complet
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and in the nuclear age what good is an international diplomatic consortium that doesn't include those people.
The consortium existed when there was only 1 nuclear power (and a second on its heels).
The other 3 came much later.
Since then there are 4 more, with a 5th on their heels, and 1 that was and now isn't- none of them ever part of that consortium.
Trying to say that the consortium is pinned to nuclear power is flimsy at best.
If the UN could bind the USA or China to their decrees do you really think either of those nations would voluntarily enjoin with it
Nope.
That's a bit overly optimistic. Why do we think Russia is still on the SC? Because they have the power to stop the UN from sanctioning them. They lose that power then they are out and the UN has zero ability to do anything now.
That's because of its broken design. This is classic post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
If Russia leaves the SC, the rest of the world has plenty of power over it.
I am not saying that the UN is completely powerless but it has to be gimped to a certain degree to exist at all. Without the power players it's nothing.
Your argument d
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I never said it was pinned to it but to think nuclear weapons, the ultimate force of protective and offensive sovereignty doesn't take part is also flimsy at best. There's a reason every nation in Europe doesn't have boots in Ukraine and it is not the UN.
If Russia leaves the SC, the rest of the world has plenty of power over it.
Yeah, through military force, not international diplomacy and now it's down to forming alliances and pacts rather than one central thing. Not a good thing in the annuls of history.
The fact is, the GA has far more actual power than the GA allows them to wield.
Example because Israel, which has been the target of probably th
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I never said it was pinned to it but to think nuclear weapons, the ultimate force of protective and offensive sovereignty doesn't take part is also flimsy at best. There's a reason every nation in Europe doesn't have boots in Ukraine and it is not the UN.
Emphasis mine.
Now quoting you for effect:
Yes and in the nuclear age what good is an international diplomatic consortium that doesn't include those people.
Wait, so it matters that it includes those people, but also doesn't, and it doesn't matter that it hasn't even traditionally had all of those people?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Yeah, through military force, not international diplomacy and now it's down to forming alliances and pacts rather than one central thing. Not a good thing in the annuls of history.
You're being deliberately dumb here, lol.
The GA can and does act as a body. Its powers are limited by the charter.
Example because Israel, which has been the target of probably the most GA resolutions in UN history doesn't seem to care about them, it just brushes them off (I am not saying this is good or bad but seriously, when have they cared?). Countries only care as much as their interests allow them to.
Again with the post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Israel would care a lot more about the GA if the GA had the power to sanction it into oblivion.
I am just saying that we should take the UN for what it is and stop trying to normalizing it to a standard it never was and really can never be without some major geopolitical disruptions. Calling it "useless" and "broken" just kindof misses the point and takes away any actual discussion of the matter we are really talking about.
I think you're actually despera
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so it matters that it includes those people and it doesn't matter that it hasn't even traditionally had all of those people?
Security council had 5 members to start which deliberately included the power players post WWII. I never said it doesn't I keep saying it has to, re-read my sentence. "What good is" implies it wouldn't be good if it didn't.
The GA can and does act as a body. Its powers are limited by the charter.
Exactly, it can't have that much power, it's limited by design. Thank you for understanding. Yes you can do different things if you change the rules. I can murder and not go to jail if I change the law to allow me to murder.
Israel would care a lot more about the GA if the GA had the power to sanction it into oblivion.
And why doesn't it have that power?
I think you're actually desperately trying to cling to the broken power structure, probably because you- like me- benefit from it.
No, I am trying to break p
Re: (Score:2)
Security council had 5 members to start which deliberately included the power players post WWII. I never said it doesn't I keep saying it has to, re-read my sentence. "What good is" implies it wouldn't be good if it didn't.
No, it included the winners. ;)
Very distinct difference since 2 of the 5 included the RoC and France
If you're trying to argue that the UNSC would be kind of silly with *no* nuclear powers- that would at least be historically arguable, but still ultimately devoid of any kind of relevant point since the UNGA has several.
Exactly, it can't have that much power, it's limited by design. Thank you for understanding. Yes you can do different things if you change the rules. I can murder and not go to jail if I change the law to allow me to murder.
I think you might be a dumb person.
We're literally discussing the system of broken rules.
And why doesn't it have that power?
Because the system was built by the winners of WW2.... next dumb question.
No, I am trying to break past the brain destroying simplification that the term "broken power structure" and "we benefit from it" does. All that does is devolve into meta conversations. What do we want the UN to do and is it reasonable for it to have that power to do it? At it's inception and the way it's charter is laid out has those limits by necessity.
Pure unadulterated poppyc
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And THAT is how the UN ceases to exist.
They're already too damn big for their britches.
Re: (Score:1)
> They can sue. They can even win. Good luck collecting or forcing the loser to action.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the context. Eventually, some form of the UN will likely come to prominence. A sort of collective hegemony of some weight, is inevitable; even if it has to come from the rubble of the old. For now, taking small international risks can result in momentum. You and I may not live to see judgements, consequence or contrition, but that's doesn't make these small steps pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Not pointless. Purposefully counterproductive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some EU politicians might actually destroy their nation just to be best little multilateral globalist boyscouts.
Re: (Score:2)
And the binding membership of the ICJ is limited to those party to that particular treaty.
cf. "Hauge Invasion Act"
Re: (Score:1)
Riiiiiight (Score:1)
A court with NO JURISDICTION makes a bullshit ruling.
Let's see them enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
Send it to the ICJ! (Score:3, Informative)
And the COD and the STFU and the WYSIWYG.
The only international law is: Might makes right.
The UN is a racist joke, overrun and largely controlled by the worst violators of human rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Just collapse the building into the river.
Re: (Score:1)
Just collapse the building into the river.
Yup. Fire up the bulldozers and just push it into Turtle Bay. Build apartments or a parking deck in its place.
Re: (Score:2)
They ought to turn one of those British military bases in Cypress into the new UN.
No snow, geographic center of the world's land mass, and contiguous with the largest UN landholding.
Being in NYC negatively affects NY, USA, and UN.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing's for sure: safe from the U.S., for now (Score:3, Insightful)
If this U.S. Administration or Congress sues anyone over climate change, everyone's irony meter will explode. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
that was my first thought. who is world famous for suing everybody for everything?
Re: (Score:2)
And winning, don't leave off that part.
The media is funding his presidential library.
Re: (Score:1)
If this U.S. Administration or Congress sues anyone over climate change, everyone's irony meter will explode. :-)
Which is why it won't happen. What has happened is Mexico taking the US administration to court over gun control. Isn't that just "cute"?
If Mexico wants to keep American guns out of the hands of Mexican criminals then maybe they should step up their border patrols, perhaps maybe even build a border wall.
Mexico wants to blame the USA for a lot of their domestic troubles and opening the door for lawsuits over global warming could just mean more cases taken to court where the Mexican government is suing the
Sue Germany (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Termination Shock (Score:3)
Re: Termination Shock (Score:2)
What if you opened borders and gave everyone a basic income and let them figure it out?
Re: (Score:2)
All the countries rush to the US because "America is freedom!", and then there's no houses or jobs or any assistance available to those who need it.
UBI doesn't work because... where does the money come from... the however many trillion USD deficit that we have... maybe everybody's Social Security? If you're getting (let's say) $700 a month, that means a lot of people just won't work, won't make money, won't pay taxes, will get to collect property tax refunds.
The one's who continue to work/seek out jobs, wi
Re: Termination Shock (Score:2)
What about the vast unpopulated stretches of Canada and Siberia and Greenland that will become lush tropical paradises any day now?
And is that Reagan calling asking for his "there's no money left" argument back, while he actually was proving that deficits don't matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean the areas where there is literally nothing around for hundreds of miles, not a power pole or a cell phone tower or a gas station or grocery store? Oh, and, you'd better like feet of snow literally burying you in every winter, and that there's no infrastructure (roads, utilities, any of that fun stuff)... not to mention stuff like a house to move into (applies to all three you mentioned).
Oh, wait... all those things cost money to build... that has to come from someplace. And, the people who ha
Re: Termination Shock (Score:2)
Who cares if they come to the US? If you don't like it, why not move? As for the dollar, if it survived going off the gold standard and printing trillions in 2008 and 2020 why shouldn't it survive basic income? What else are you going to invest in? Are you aware that US stocks outperform inflation because private international agents actually prefer sn expansive currency?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't invest... that requires a ton of money that I can afford to lose! Why would I invest $100K in gold when selling the gold gets me $99K?
Moving somewhere requires money (and, out of country, requires VISA/Passport... don't know the rules exactly, but I know I don't have it), not to mention money to transport 'stuff' that may be hung up for months that I may never get.
US stocks outperform inflation (and basically everything else), because the USD has been devalued so much (the US will just print more m
ingrate "vulnerable" countries (Score:1)
Those countries would have nothing without the wealthier countries that built modern civilization using fossil fuel to do it. They are riding our coattails being blessed by our prosperity.
This is a good thing, but... (Score:1)
But the UN is the prime example of what happens when a force for good is taken over by hateful woke cunts whose hate and ignorance means they can't get a real, productive job.
The UN should be leading the world to glorious peace, democracy and scientific progress, but is instead so full of stupid, shrill, under worked and over paid, selfrighteous, do-gooding, racist, manhating, victim-inventers t
Re: (Score:1)
"leads in green energy" ... and leads in new coal plants.
China also leads the world in new nuclear power construction.
If the rest of the world is to look to China as some example to follow then that means more nuclear power plants. Those that believe nuclear power should be avoided, that this technology is not needed, should not be pointing to China as an example.
Who is an example then? Germany? Germany closed their nuclear power plants and that left them restarting coal mining and coal power plants, and not the "clean coal" but the dirty brown coal that is as
Jumped the shark... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? This is perfectly expected within the powers and purpose and mechanism of the UN. The purpose of the UN is to peacefully solve conflicts. For this purpose it hosts international tribunals. Countries invoke each other's obligations under the UN. The new thing today is: the UN confirms the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change (e.g. "Paris agreement", other similar) are accepted just like any other UN treaty as foundation for complains.
It would be strange if it wasn't. The basis of Rule of Law is that
This means nothing. (Score:2)
The court knows it has no authority to do anything here. It's just virtue signaling and wishful thinking. The article ends with:
But the question remains whether the ICJ opinion will be respected. "[The ICJ] is an institution that is subject to geopolitics – and it relies on states adhering to its judgements, it doesn't have a police force," said Harj Narulla, a climate barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, which also represented the Solomon Islands.
When asked about the decision, a White House spokesp