There isn't really international law.
There are treaties, there are conventions, there are norms, there are customs.
But all of it is against a particular backdrop.
If a country's government just doesn't wanna and it matters a lot to it, you're going to have a hard time making it unless you're ready to impose sanctions or invade. And if one of the ones that just doesn't wanna is on the security council, good luck with the invasion option.
So international bodies work within that constraint. There are bounds on what's achievable based on countries' tolerance about being bound.
And it seems important to stay within those bounds lest the whole thing collapse.
I'd love to see a Kalshi or Polymarket contract on whether China or the United States or the Saudis will ever pay a fine assessed by the International Court of Justice for producing greenhouse gases.
Today, Australia has found itself on the wrong side of history.
The International Court of Justice has handed down a landmark ruling in the most significant climate decision ever issued by a court. As a barrister representing Solomon Islands in the case, I was in the courtroom to hear the judges reshape the global fight for climate justice.
The world’s top court resoundingly rejected conservative arguments made by Australia and other high-emitting countries such as the United States, China and Saudi Arabia seeking to justify continued fossil fuel extraction. Instead, the court made a slew of progressive statements – ones that will have far-reaching implications.
Under international law, countries are now bound to rapidly reduce their emissions below 1.5 degrees of warming. Failure to do so could result in developed countries like Australia having to pay monetary compensation to developing countries or being required to rebuild infrastructure and restore ecosystems damaged by climate change. This means we could be entering a new era of climate reparations.
My bet: if claimant countries are careful, they will only sue countries like New Zealand, Canada, and some European countries. Ones that might at least pretend to comply with a ruling and provide some kind of transfers in response. Canada might promise to pay and then hand out coupons for Canadian cheddar, redeemable only on one single Tuesday afternoon between the hours of 13:45 and 13:46 at a Canadian Tire outlet in Iqaluit - subject to availability of cheddar and whether there is a Canadian Tire there in the first place. But it'd be something.
If they sue the US, China, or the Saudis - they're not going to get compensation.
And if they sue a mix of countries, some of which play nice and some of which don't, the whole ICJ process risks looking like a mug’s game. That risks delegitimising a court that might be better off maintaining a more modest, more enforceable remit.
I'm not an IR guy though. Weakly held view that this whole thing is a terrible idea with serious downside risk, happy to be convinced otherwise.
The Guardian piece was from a couple of weeks ago; I'd had this post in draft. I was reminded of it though by comments from Labour's Deborah Russell in Carbon News, where Labour promised to reinstate the oil and gas ban:
Speaking in the general debate in Parliament last week, as the government was set to pass the bill to repeal the oil and gas ban, Labour Party list MP Deborah Russell slammed the coalition government’s lack of action on climate change.
Russell recalled Climate Change Minister Simon Watts’ comments earlier this year that “no one sends you an invoice” for climate change liability.
“But just last week,” Russell said, “the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the obligations of States in respect of climate change… it says that States must act on climate change or be held responsible.”
Russell referenced several of the judgement’s findings, including that States must regulate private actors' emissions, States have a responsibility around climate change and that climate action can trigger legal consequences.
Significantly, the finding opens the door for nation states to sue other countries for climate damages – legal consequences could include “full reparations to injured states”, including “restitution, compensation and satisfaction.”
I would hope that a sufficient defence for New Zealand would be:
"Every tonne of New Zealand emissions from any new gas well must be accompanied by the surrender of one NZU. If people burn gas, the ETS means that either someone else has reduced some other emission, or someone has sequestered a tonne of emissions - probably in a forest. So the new well has no effect on New Zealand's net emissions. The only thing that affects New Zealand's net emissions is the number of unbacked NZU that the government chooses to issue or allocate. And if you think that number is worth suing us over, whether new drilling is allowed or not is irrelevant."
