Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court
The UN has opened the door to Britain being sued over its ‘contribution’ to climate change, after the International Court of Justice said historic emissions or failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could allow other states ‘affected by climate change’ to sue them. The Telegraph has more.
In a significant legal opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, allow other states affected by climate change to sue them.
It also cleared the way for lawsuits over historic emissions, which could leave the UK, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, at risk of legal action from other nations.
The advisory opinion issued on Wednesday in The Hague is a way of clarifying specific questions of international law, and is not legally binding.
However, it carries legal weight and moral authority and is expected to be influential on the future of environmental litigation.
The UK implemented an ICJ advisory opinion when it agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year in a deal in which Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, played an influential role.
The new opinion will raise fears that Lord Hermer would back any attempt by a foreign country to use the opinion to sue Britain.
“Hermer has demonstrated he does not bat for Britain,” said Richard Tice, Deputy Leader of Reform UK.
The Tories and Reform both rejected the ruling and said they would not pay any damages if they were in government.
Dame Priti Patel, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions on issues such as reparations and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments.
“The Labour Government is equally ideologically obsessed with this nonsense. Activist-led court rulings like this should never be treated as binding.
“This is the process of lawfare that led to the Chagos surrender and must not be replicated on this issue. We challenge Labour to put Britain’s interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.”
Mr Tice said: “Under no circumstances would a Reform government pay any ludicrous climate reparations. Nor will we not be beholden to any foreign court.
“This is another non-binding advisory judgment by the ICJ, who absurdly said we should give up the Chagos. They just hate us.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A straightforward advisory sex and travel notification is all that needs to be forwarded to the UN and ICJ.
Job done.
And i am not being facetious. We have had enough and we are taking our bat home. Brutally plain speaking is now essential and bollox to niceties.
So let me get this right, they are going to sue the UK for weather? Or just being here, yet not planning on suing the US, India, China etc(I’d love to see them try that)🤣🤣
Apparently while it is Bangladesh taking the action, it started with Vanuatu, which according to the climate change nutters is more affected by rising sea levels and has experienced above average increases. How? Other than tides, the sea is a homogeneous body of water. How can levels be more in one place than another. This got me to research a bit deeper into what these morons were claiming.
Firstly it turns out that Vanuatu is affected by tectonic rises in sea levels, or more plainly the plate they sit on is sinking a tiny bit. What do I mean by a tiny bit, well reference to the Government of Vanuatu’s own website reveals that sea levels are increasing by about one millimetre per year – how do they even measure such a small amount. I think we can call bulls**t on the whole thing and with a halfway decent Government ignore the bloody lawyers. Oh bugger, our prime minister is one of them and will accept every word they say.
Also since when is a sea level ‘rise’ that only affects a set of Pacific islands a global issue? In addition, the Vanuatu Islands have a surface area of just over 12,189 km² which equates to a square of 110km (= 68 miles) each side, and yet according to the Independent these islands are the poster child for global warming.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/tuvalu-pacific-international-court-of-justice-international-criminal-court-life-b2793387.html
If this was an O-Level maths question…
How delightfully inventive! Proving once again that the parasite class (the state bourgeoisie) justifies its lavish wages by manufacturing jobs for it to do. Hence the lunatic attempt to transfer money form one people to another based on the bogus “climate emergency”.
Exactly. “The Marxist Redistribution of Wealth”.
So countries like Vanuatu, Tuvalu and the Maldives will be able to sue us? These are amongst the world’s most notorious tax heavens. They cost us billions in lost tax each year and they want to sue us? If they are so concerned about CO2 then maybe they should shut some of their dozens of airports. This is poor British tax payers being scammed for money to lavish on the holiday destinations of the super-rich.
Surely first they’d have to prove climate change, then that it is harmful, then that there is such a thing as man-made climate change, then that we did it.
Then we can tell them to go forth and multiply.
These kind of proceedings do not understand the simple word “evidence”. There is none available, therefore case proven!
Another fine opportunity for 2 tear Kier to grandstand and virtue signal at our expense, which he’ll be pleased about.
I don’t know what temperature our planet has reached, but my blood is certainly boiling.
Lol. As we keep saying, there’s no such thing as international law so you can’t sue other countries. You can invade them, impose economic or financial or travel sanctions on them, but you can’t sue them or convict them of anything. And only other countries can do that, not international bodies. International bodies would need at least one country to carry out its “verdict”.
That’s the nice theory.
The ugly practice will be that the Starmer, Hermer and Miliband trio of Quislings will wring their hands dramatically, mutter something like “Britain has been breaking international law with impudence for hundreds of years before it even got established! We can but humbly accept our unspeakable historic guilt! Here’s the money you asked for!” as the whole point of this sorty farce is to enable exactly that.
Indeed. I would be curious to know what people in general in the UK think about “international law”. Probably most people would think it’s a thing, and many would think it’s a good thing, as it the current direction of it may coincide with their political views. How depressing.
In The Adventure of the Norwood Builder, Holmes remarks that a central reason for Jonas Oldacre’s downfalls was that he was lacking an important quality of any true artist: The knowledge about when to stop. The international extortion club behind this seems to suffer from a similar problem and this will hopefully eventually result in a similar outcome.
Good point. I think “covid” was overreach – eventually became too silly and too obviously a scam for it to be sustainable, and they gave up because people were getting bored and restless. Their arrogance may be their downfall.
I think increasingly people realise it’s a crock of shit.
Sstarmer has tested it to destruction but is too stupid to realise.
Don’t forget the 10% enabler bonus!
So we have bend over and take it up the arse Starmer while the US has a president who makes things happen such as telling the International Energy Authority to do its proper job or lose the 18% of budget funding from the US.
The amount of CO₂ Great Britain has released into the atmosphere, including “historic emissions” is miniscule compared to CO₂ emitted by China, India and the USA. Hence, if human-emitted CO₂ affects “the climate” in negative ways, Britain is obviously not responsible for that.
It follows thatthe people behind this do not believe that there’s really any kind of emergency caused by CO₂
Will proof be needed that Britain is responsible for “climate change” or is proof not a necessary requirement in courts?
Because if proof is needed, proper proof, then Britain should be fine.
Proof seems to be whatever the scammers want it to be and will change according to the pushback. Models and Hollywood movies seem to be proof enough.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Chris Folland – UK Meteorological Office:
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
David Frame – Climate modeler, Oxford University:
According to earth.org there are “10 Climate Change Movies To Watch This Year”
1. Don’t Look Up (2021)
2. Princess Mononoke (1997)
3. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
4. Before the Flood (2016)
5. Eating Our Way to Extinction (2021)
6. 2040 (2019)
7. Burning (2021)
8. The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
9. An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
10. David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020)
https://earth.org/climate-change-movies/
In fact the emissions of the so-called developing countries up to the present day are considerably greater than the emissions of all Western countries and far greater than those of the EU and UK. Moreover, Vanuatu and other Pacific islands, far from being inundated, are actually growing larger.
But or course, if the Government had any guts at all, it would simply ignore the ICJ.
If it were not so serious, it would be hilarious. No, it’s hilarious.
Surely the right people to sue would be the Catholic Church, because this is an act of God? And they are richer than most churches, so probably worth suing, whereas many other churches are not.
Was it Stephenson and his bl**dy Rocket… ?
Or
Arkwright and his Spinning Jenny?
Lunacy is rampant
That could be interesting. There is zero evidence anyone has been damaged by climate change!