Cyclone damage in Vanuatu. Credit: UNICEF/ReliefWeb

By Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Jul 30 2025 (IPS)

Legal minds in international law are trying to interpret the scope and impact of the landmark advisory opinion on climate change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where it said that states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment.

The court ruling says that the states have a responsibility to cooperate internationally to prevent the impact of climate change. It didn’t directly link climate change and the health crisis but recognized the health aspect through the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” Organizations advocating for the health-related actions in the climate change discussion are saying the court opinion affirmed “climate crisis as health crisis.”

Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), noted the advisory opinion made three things clear.

• All countries have an obligation to address climate change under international and customary laws, beyond their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
•  It provides legal leverage to seek reparations from major emitters, including from the fossil fuel industry.
• Small islands will keep their statehood if their land disappears due to sea level rise—as illustrated by the Rising Nation Initiative, Global Centre for Climate Mobility—thus boosting their efforts to preserve their sovereignty, rights, and cultural heritage with dignity.

Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director at the Global Climate and Health Alliance said the court has delivered a historic affirmation that the climate crisis is a health crisis-and failure to act is a failure to protect life

“This ruling confirms that governments and corporations have a legal duty to prevent further harm, uphold the right to health, and safeguard future generations,” she said in a statement. “From deadly heat and toxic air to disease and displacement, the Court’s message is clear-human health is not collateral damage.”

The ICJ issued its ruling on July 23 in response to a United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution led by Vanuatu, the small island nation in the Pacific, which knocked on the ICJ’s door asking for an advisory opinion on the obligation of the states to address climate change and its legal consequences.

Following a long hearing last December, the ICJ delivered its first opinion on climate change. “The case was unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion. “This case was not simply a legal problem but concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

Pivotal moment for climate and health justice

While addressing planetary health, the court laid out the case for the impact of human-induced climate change and its impact on growing health concerns. In its ruling the court took note of participants discussing the existence of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

During the hearing of the case in December Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus testified to the court and said climate change is fundamentally a health crisis. “The climate crisis is among the most significant health challenges facing humanity today,” he said during his testimony to the court.

Experts believe that health workers and advocates now have powerful legal backing to demand bold, science-based climate action rooted in justice. They are still reviewing the court’s opinion to make a more nuanced analysis and said it marks a pivotal moment for climate and health justice. Shweta Narayan, Campaign lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance, said the ruling affirms the urgency of comprehensive, rights-based action that addresses both immediate health harms and the root causes of the crisis.

“This represents a major step forward in reframing the climate crisis as fundamentally a health crisis-and in mobilizing the legal, scientific, and political tools needed to respond,” she adds.

“This ruling strengthens the moral mandate to place health at the center of climate negotiations, including in adaptation, loss and damage, and climate finance frameworks.”

The court used the human rights approach to address the health aspect of climate change in its ruling. In a rapid legal analysis, Vanuatu, who led the campaign for the opinion, also welcomed the ruling.

“The opinion integrates international human rights law, identifying the rights to life, health, an adequate standard of living, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as directly threatened by climate change,” the Vanuatu Climate Justice Program said in a statement. “It affirms that environmental protection is a precondition for their enjoyment.”

Dagnet added that it demonstrated the power of activism.

“The students of Vanuatu dared to dream big and challenge the status quo, and it paid off with what could end up being one of the most important milestones in the global climate fight. I am thrilled at the landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision to validate some of the most ambitious climate priorities championed by vulnerable states over the last 50 years.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Khumbu Glacier at the Mt. Everest base camp. Because of rising temperatures, glaciers are melting at a faster rate. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

By Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Dec 10 2024 (IPS)

At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), no matter if the country had high Himalayas, was a small island nation or was experiencing armed conflict, they all agreed that the due diligence principle and the obligation of states to prevent harm caused by climate change, especially for high greenhouse gas emitters, were non-negotiable.

On Monday, December 9, 2024, countries including Nepal, Pakistan, Nauru, New Zealand and the State of Palestine presented their cases before the highest court within the United Nations.

Countries within the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region, Nepal and Pakistan, included examples of recent years disasters, including flash floods and their impact on livelihoods, while the small island state of Nauru laid out the toll faced by its people because of rising sea level. The State of Palestine connected its plea to ongoing armed conflict and climate-environmental destruction.

At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states who have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states. So far, more than 70 countries have presented their case before the court.

Indigenous Sherpa women in the Khumbu region of Nepal. These mountain communities are already facing the impact of climate change in the form of low snowfall and glacier melting, which causes floods. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Human Rights and Technology Transfer—Nepal

Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arzu Rana Deuba, stressed climate change-induced disasters were hindering the human rights of people on the front lines and said countries responsible for emissions needed to fulfil their obligations.

“Climate change hinders the realization and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life, right to food, right to health, right to adequate housing, sanitation and water,” Deuba said. “Moreover, it impacts the rights of women, children and people with disabilities, as well as the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous communities.”

Nepal says many vulnerable states were not able to meet the obligations under international human rights laws, as the actions and emissions arising from beyond their territory also had adverse effects on the human rights of their citizens. The country of mountains, including Mt. Everest, stressed the need for material, technical and financial support from the countries whose historic emissions have caused the crisis of anthropogenic climate change.

“This includes unhindered access to technology and the sharing of meteorological and glacial data,” Deuba said. “Nepal considers that the court’s advisory opinion will contribute to clarifying the law, especially the obligations of the states regarding climate change and the rules governing the consequences of the violation of these obligations.”

Suvanga Parajuli, Under Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, added that the country was facing a gross injustice. “What countries like Nepal are calling for is not mere handouts of charity but compensation for real climate justice,” Parajuli said.

Court Opinion Could Help Avert Catastrophe—Pakistan

Another HKH region country, Pakistan, which faced devastating floods caused by climate change in 2022, stressed the need for support and knowledge sharing. Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan, urged the court to give an opinion that clarifies the legal obligations of states to prevent, avoid, reduce, or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

“If lives and livelihoods are to be protected, if we want to avoid utter catastrophe, there simply is no time to lose. As has often been said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and undoubtedly, we are the last generation that can do something about it.”

Awan continued, “For the human race, ignoring the climate emergency is no longer an option.”

We Are Facing Existential Threat—Nauru

Island country Nauru argues that climate change poses an existential threat to its security and well-being, highlighting the impact of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and drought at the UN court.

The island is a mere 21 km² (8.1 sq mi), oval-shaped island in the southwestern Pacific Ocean.

Representing Nauru Lionel Rouwen Aingimea, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, emphasized the obligations of states in respect of climate change to be the obligations found in the principles of general international law.

“We urge this court to clarify the scope of the existing obligations of states with respect to climate change,” Aingimea said. “No more, but certainly no less, we seek your affirmation that the law protects the vulnerable and that our fundamental rights under general international law—to exist, to thrive, to safeguard our land—are upheld and respected.”

He urged the court to deliver an advisory opinion that reflects “the urgency, the dignity and the right of all peoples to exist in security.”

Island countries’ vulnerability was central to New Zealand’s arguments. Representing Pacific Island countries, Victoria Hallum, Deputy Secretary Multilateral and Legal Affairs Group at New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs and Trade ministry, emphasized the urgent need to address anthropogenic climate change. It said climate change was the single greatest threat to the Pacific Island regions.

Armed Conflict and Climate Change Connected—Palestine

The State of Palestine highlighted the intersection of climate change and international law, particularly the impacts of armed conflict and military activities.

Palestine positioned itself as a key contributor to the proceedings and referred to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on nuclear weapons to support its argument on the relationship between environmental protection and international law in armed conflict.

At the ICJ hearing, Ammar Hijazi, Ambassador of Palestine to International Organizations in The Hague, linked the relationship between climate change and emissions during armed conflict.

“The State of Palestine is responsible for less than 0.001% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Palestine now grapples with unprecedented severe climate events, mainly due to Israel’s occupation and policies and practices,” Hijazi said. “Israel’s occupation curtails our ability to support climate policy. As a party to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, Palestine is taking action to reduce 17.5 percent of its GHG by 2040, when our goal could be 26.6 percent if Israel’s occupation ends.”

Palestine argued that the court should not miss the opportunity to address the relation, obligation and rights of the people in the context of armed conflict and climate change in the historic opinion it will issue at the conclusion of these advisory proceedings. “This will fulfill the promise not to leave anyone behind and ensure that law applies to all,” Hijazi said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Submissions from Papua New Guinea laid bear the country's diversity and heightened vulnerability to climate change. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
THE HAGUE & NAIROBI, Dec 6 2024 (IPS)

Kenya agrees with many UN member states testifying before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the law of international responsibility should hold countries legally responsible for major damage to the global climate system.

“Responsible states must cease wrongful acts or remedy any omissions harmful to the climate system as well as make reparations for all damage caused by their breach. Such reparation may take the form of compensation for loss and damage. Of course, the court need not definitively pronounce on compensation in the context of historical omissions,” said Phoebe Okowa, a Kenyan lawyer and Professor of Public International Law.

“However, this is a precious opportunity to integrate the corpus juris (body of law) of climate change treaty law and customary international law, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, in a way that will assist states in establishing workable frameworks for compensation.”

Okowa was speaking on behalf of Kenya at the ICJ, which is one of 98 countries and 12 organizations participating in ongoing public hearings, contributing to the UN top court’s advisory opinion on the obligation of states to prevent climate change and ensure the protection of the environment for present and future generations.

The ongoing landmark climate change case dates to September 2021, when the Pacific Island of Vanuatu announced its intention to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. Vanuatu supported the efforts of a youth group—the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change—who were concerned about the vulnerability of small island developing states in the region to climate change.

Vanuatu then lobbied other countries to support this initiative and formed the core group of UN member states to take the initiative forward to the General Assembly.

In pursuit of this advisory, Ambassador Halima Mucheke on behalf of Kenya said the court “has had numerous participants stress the existential nature of the threat caused by climate change. In response, this court must bring clarity to the law, informed by the perspectives of developing states, particularly those in Africa, where temperatures are rising the fastest.”

“We believe that a clarification of the existing legal obligations will provide much-needed guidance to states, as well as the impetus for the next phase of political negotiations. Kenya specifically invites the court to draw on equitable principles reflected in climate change treaties, such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,” she said.

Fred Sarufa, Permanent Representative of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea to the UN, said in the country’s nearly 50 years of nationhood, this was their first appearance before ICJ because climate change can no longer be ignored. He then proceeded to illustrate the significant issues at stake.

Prof. Phoebe Okowa invited the court to integrate the corpus juris of climate change treaty law towards a workable framework for compensation. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

“Papua New Guinea is home to and the custodian of a diverse geophysical and geomorphic landscape, including 20,197 kilometres of coastline, 40,000 square kilometres of coral reefs, one of the highest known levels of marine biological diversity in the world, around 10 percent of the world’s biodiversity in less than 1 percent of the world’s total land area, and the world’s third largest expanse of pristine tropical rainforest, covering 77.8 percent of our total land area,” Sarufa told the court.

Stressing that Papua New Guinea’s biodiversity is directly linked to its unsurpassed linguistic diversity, with over 850 spoken languages, the most in the world. Pila Niningi, the Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Papua New Guinea, discussed the numerous ways that climate change is wreaking havoc.

These include “forcing people to abandon their ancestral lands and territories, altered landscapes and seascapes, disrupted livelihoods, and led to civil unrest among traditional landowners, fighting over increasingly limited land and space. It has also endangered food crops, water and security, and the collapse of traditional and cultural practices and indigenous systems of governance,” Niningi said.

Rising seas have forced the islanders from northeast Bougainville and the people of Veraibari in the Gulf province of Papua New Guinea to abandon their ancestral lands because it engulfed their homes and schools and inundated what remains of the arable land.

This led Papua New Guinea to join other Pacific nations in adopting, within the framework of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Boe Declaration on Regional Security, which affirms, among others, that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security, and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific.

On her part, Kenya invited the court to confirm that significant financial assistance and technology transfer are binding legal obligations and not matters of discretion.

Professor Dr. Makane Moïse Mbengue from the African Union told the Court the matter on hand was about climate justice, as “climate change is a phenomenon that has not been caused by all states equally, and nor will all states suffer its effects equally.”

He emphasized that science serves as the cornerstone of climate justice for states, peoples, and individuals affected by climate change, underscoring the necessity of protecting the climate system and demanding responsibility from states that have caused harm to it. In this context, he said the African Union welcomes the court’s engagement with experts from the IPCC prior to the commencement of the hearings.

“The African Union notes efforts of certain states, albeit a minority, to negate science and trivialize the ordinary meaning of the terms of the request (for an advisory opinion). Their repeated calls for undue caution now, and in their written submissions, are transparent attempts to dilute the very object of the present proceedings. The African Union respectfully urges the court to dismiss these unfounded arguments,” he observed.

Further inviting the court to “reject the flawed argument, which was repeated again this week, that the relevant obligations are reduced solely to the so-called specialists of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The same arguments were tried, tested, and defeated before they lost. Nonetheless, they should find no fertile ground before the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, whose advisory opinions have consistently contributed to maintaining the systemic coherence of the international legal system.”

Mbengue said that if the court didn’t say who was responsible, it would be the same as a situation of non-liquet, which means there is no law that applies, and states would be free to keep damaging the climate system. Such an outcome could hardly have been the intention of the General Assembly in seeking this advisory opinion.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, is holding public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Mr. Nawaf Salam, President of the court, is preciding. Credit: ICJ

By Umar Manzoor Shah
THE HAGUE & SRINAGAR, Dec 5 2024 (IPS)

Developing nations should not bear the brunt of the climate crisis caused by the industrialized world’s historical emissions. This was the resounding message as the Solomon Islands, India, and Iran, among others, presented their cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The submissions from three nations—Solomon Islands, India, and Iran—converged on one critical point: climate change is a global crisis requiring collective action. The Solomon Islands highlighted the intrinsic link between climate justice and human rights, urging urgent global efforts to protect vulnerable populations.

At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states that have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states. Hearings are ongoing at the court in The Hague.

India stressed the need for international cooperation based on the principles of equity and the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDRRC); however, it cautioned against any overreach that could compromise developmental priorities. Iran agreed, asserting that effective climate action depends on the fair treatment of developing nations and the removal of barriers to cooperation.

Solomon Islands: A Cry for Justice
Representatives Attorney General John Muria, Junior and counsel Harj Narulla from the Solomon Islands elaborated on the threats posed by rising sea levels, urging the ICJ to affirm the moral and legal obligations of industrialized nations to support vulnerable states.

“Our people face displacement, loss of livelihoods, and threats to their cultural heritage, yet we have contributed negligibly to global emissions,” said Muria. He called for the court to prioritize the principle of “climate justice,” asserting that nations historically responsible for greenhouse gas emissions bear a greater obligation to mitigate climate impacts and assist affected countries.

The Solomon Islands demanded enhanced financial and technological support for small island and least-developed states. They argued that this assistance is not an act of charity but a legal and ethical necessity rooted in international law.

India Pleads for Equity and Differentiated Responsibilities
India’s representative, Luther Rangreji, said that the complexities of climate change as a global challenge disproportionately affect developing nations. Rangreji highlighted the inherent inequities, noting that developing nations, like India, contribute less to emissions but bear the brunt of climate impacts.

“Developed countries, historically the largest contributors to climate change, have the resources to address it. Yet, they demand that developing nations limit their energy use. This is inequity at its core,” Rangreji said.

India’s submission reinforced the principle of CBDRRC as enshrined in international agreements such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Rangreji said that developing nations’ developmental priorities, including poverty eradication, must not be compromised in the name of climate action.

Legal Frameworks and Unmet Financial Obligations
Both India and the Solomon Islands highlighted the necessity for robust legal frameworks to address climate change. The Solomon Islands referenced previous ICJ cases, such as the Pulp Mills and Nuclear Weapons advisory opinions, to underline states’ obligations to prevent transboundary harm.

India, while advocating for the frameworks established by the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, cautioned against imposing new obligations. Rangreji emphasized the significance of fulfilling current commitments, specifically the USD 100 billion annual climate finance pledge from developed nations, a promise that provided minimal benefits to developing countries.

“USD 100 billion pledged at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 by developed country parties and the doubling of the contribution to the adaptation fund have not yet been translated into any concrete actions,” Rangreji said.

“Climate finance is not charity; it is an obligation.”

He argued that developing nations can scale up climate actions only if adequately supported.

Furthermore, India provided data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to highlight disparities. Rangreji noted that developed nations, despite comprising only 16 percent of the global population, contributed 57 percent of cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2019. This historical responsibility, India argued, necessitates a differential approach to climate obligations.

Similarly, the Solomon Islands stated that small island nations bear a disproportionate burden of climate impacts. “Justice demands that those who benefited most from industrialization should bear the greater burden of rectifying its consequences,” stated their representative.

Iran Urges Equity and International Cooperation
Sayyid Ali Mousavi, representing the Islamic Republic of Iran, emphasized the principles of equity, CBDRRC, and international cooperation. Mousavi emphasized the significant challenges that developing nations like Iran, despite their limited emissions, face due to climate change.

Mousavi criticized unilateral coercive measures imposed by developed nations, arguing that these measures hinder the transfer of financial support and technology critical for climate mitigation in developing countries. He called on the ICJ to recognize such restrictions as violations of international cooperation principles.

“Developed countries must lead in reducing emissions and supporting developing nations through financial resources, technology transfer, and capacity building,” Mousavi stated, referencing the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement as foundational frameworks.

Iran’s representative stated that the CBDRRC principle is significant, as it differentiates obligations based on historical emissions and current capacities. Mousavi argued that developed nations’ leadership in addressing climate change should include financial contributions, technology transfer, and capacity-building efforts for developing countries.

“Without access to technology and resources, developing countries cannot effectively participate in global climate mitigation efforts,” Mousavi told the court.

He criticized trade policies such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism, describing them as disproportionate measures that unfairly burden developing economies.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Debris left after Cyclone Winston in 2016. At least 44 people died, and any villages were completely destroyed. Credit: Vlad Sokhin / Climate Visuals

By Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Dec 5 2024 (IPS)

At The Hague, the United Nation’s highest court heard Fiji, a small island nation, lay out its arguments on the threat posed by climate change and the legal obligations, especially those of developed nations.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, Fiji argued that the failure to act on climate change is a violation of international law and that nations have a duty to prevent harm, protect human rights, and secure a livable future for all.

Luke Daunivalu, Permanent Representative of Fiji to the UN in Geneva, laid out the background of suffering caused by sea level rise and worsening hazards on people who bear the brunt of climate impacts.

“Fiji stands before here, not only for our people but also for future generations and ecosystems,” Daunivalu said.

“Our people in climate vulnerable countries are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness, and for justice.”

Daunivalu was addressing the International Court of Justice (ICJ). At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states who have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states.

Graham Leung, Fiji’s Attorney General, argued that international law imposes clear obligations on states to address climate change.

“We are not here to create new laws, but to ensure compliance with existing international laws.”

Citing the European Court of Human Rights precedent-setting judgment in April this year, which held that Switzerland has a responsibility under the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) to combat climate change effectively to protect the human rights of their citizens, Leung said, “States can be held individually accountable for their contributions to climate change. Similarly, it was affirmed that states failing to meet the obligations bear responsibility for their actions.”

U.S. Opposed Creation of New Legal Obligations

While Fiji was demanding more action from the nations who are largely responsible for the human-caused climate change impacts, countries like the United States argued against the creation of new legal obligations or determined reparations and stressed the importance of due diligence in addressing transboundary harm.

Margaret Taylor, an attorney at the Department of State who represented the U.S., said her country “recognizes the climate crisis as one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced.

However, climate change was an issue for the entire planet.

“It is global in its causes, resulting from a wide variety of human activities worldwide that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, including super pollutants such as methane. Such activities include not only the burning of fossil fuels for energy production but also agriculture, deforestation, and industrial processes.”

Taylor emphasized that there was already a framework for climate action initiated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement and asked the court to preserve and promote the centrality of the UN climate change regime.

The U.S. argued advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate past violations or determine reparations but rather to guide future conduct.

“I want to underscore that there is no basis to apply any bifurcated or other categorical differentiation of duties among states, such as between those characterized as developed and those sometimes characterized as developing. There is simply no legal foundation for such an approach,” Taylor said.

She repeatedly brought up the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, reflecting the principle that obligations should be interpreted according to national circumstances.

The U.S. also emphasized its commitment to addressing the climate crisis, aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and achieve net zero not later than 2050. She focused on the Paris Agreement’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the UNFCCC framework highlighted as central to international cooperation.

Russia Says 1.5°C is Not Binding

At the ICJ, Russia also supported the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, emphasizing national differentiation in climate efforts and the non-binding nature of the 1.5°C temperature goal. Like the US, Russia also underscored the need for international cooperation and the role of human rights in climate action.

Representing Russia, Maxim Musikhin, Director of the Foreign Ministry Legal Department, said, “There is no basis to consider the States are obligated to adopt measures to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C for similar reasons; the transition from fossil fuels is not a legal obligation but rather a political appeal to states.”

Russia argued that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is discussed in the climate change framework, but it has not crystallized in customary international law.

But Spain, who addressed the ICJ before the U.S. and Russia, argued the need for a human rights-based approach to climate change, highlighting the link between environmental degradation and human rights violations. It highlighted the environmental crisis as a global social crisis with a direct impact on the protection and enjoyment of human rights.

Vanuatu’s Disappointment

After the ICJ’s proceeding on Wednesday, Vanuatu expressed its disappointment. Ralph Regenvanu, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment for the Republic of Vanuatu, stressed that destruction of the climate system is unlawful, and big polluters must be held accountable.

“We are obviously disappointed by the statements made by the governments of Australia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and China during the ICJ proceedings. These nations, some of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions.”

Regenvanu said in a statement, “Let me be clear: these treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability.”

At the court, frontline counties are pushing for clarification of the legal obligations of nations responsible for anthropogenic climate change. On Wednesday, Fiji urged the court to declare the failure to act on climate change a violation of international law and affirmed that states have a duty to prevent harm, protect human rights, and secure a livable future for all.

Leung urged the court, “Let this be the moment when the cries of the vulnerable are heard.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Cynthia Houniuhi, the head of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Credit: IPS

By Cecilia Russell
THE HAGUE & JOHANNESBURG, Dec 2 2024 (IPS)

A few UN member states responsible for the majority of emissions have breached international law, Ralph Regenvanu, a special climate envoy from Vanuatu, told the International Court of Justice in the Hague in his opening address.

He was the first person to address the court action started by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and supported by the government of Vanautu. In 2023, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” The opinion requested is wide-ranging, going beyond the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreements.

Setting the scene for the 10-day hearings, Regenvanu said his nation of islands and people had built vibrant cultures over millennia “that are intimately intertwined with our ancestral lands and seas. Yet today, we find ourselves on the front lines of a crisis we did not create.”

Arnold Kiel Loughman, Attorney General of Vanuatu, said it was for the ICJ to uphold international law and hold states accountable for their actions.

“How can the conduct that has taken humanity to the brink of catastrophe, threatening the survival of entire peoples, be lawful and without consequences?” Loughman asked. “We urge the Court to affirm in the clearest terms that this contact is in preach of the obligations of states and international law, and that such preach carries little consequences.”

Cynthia Houniuhi, the head of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which had initiated the action, said climate change was undermining “the sacred contract” between generations.

“Without our land, our bodies and memories are severed from the fundamental relationships that define who we are. Those who stand to lose are the future generations. Their future is uncertain, reliant upon the decision-making of a handful of large emitting states.”

Throughout the day, countries impacted by climate change told the ICJ that climate change agreements did not preclude other aspects of international law. During it’s first day of hearings, the court heard from Vanuatu and Melanesian Spearhead Group, South Africa, Albania, Germany, Antigua and Barbuda, Saudi Arabia, Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh and Barbados.

At the end of the day, Barbados gave graphic examples of how climate change affects the country and asked the court to consider robust obligations on states to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate change is not some unstoppable force that individual states have no control over. We must cut through the noise and accept that those whose activities have led to the current state of global affairs must offer a response that is commensurate with the destruction that has been caused. There is no parity, there is no fairness, there is no equity,” Bahamas attorney general Ryan Pinder told the court.

Showing a photograph of piles of what looked like refuse, Pinder recalled the impact of Hurricane Dorian.

“You can easily mistake this photograph for a pile of rubbish. However, what you are looking at are lost homes and lost livelihoods. A 20-foot storm surge rushed through the streets of these islands, contributing to approximately 3 billion US dollars in economic damage. That’s about 25 percent of our annual GDP in just two days. The results of such a storm are real. They include displaced people, learning loss, livelihoods, and lost and missing loved ones, all because some countries have ignored the warning signs of the climate crisis.”

The Bahamas’ demands were clear and irrevocable.

“It is time for these polluters to pay. The IPCC has been telling us for years that the only way to stop a warming planet is to make deep, rapid and sustained cuts in the global greenhouse gas emissions. The world needs to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which requires a cut in the GHG emissions by at least 43 percent in the next five years. Industrial states need to take urgent action now and provide reparations for their decades of neglect.”

Saudi Arabia had earlier in the proceedings argued that the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement set state obligations to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. They argued that giving future generations legal status was dangerous and that obligations that were inconsistent with or exceeded those agreed in the specialized climate-related treaty regime would undermine the ongoing and future progress in international efforts to protect the climate system.

However, Pinder told the court that climate agreements do not exist in isolation.

“The climate treaties refer to both human rights and the prevention obligation. They did not erase existing public international law, and those who claim otherwise provide no credible support for their proposition. The court should resist such harmful attempts to dilute and distort international law.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The Peace Palace housing the International Court of Justice. The court today will begin hearings into the responsibilities of UN member states with regard to climate change. Credit: ICJ

By Cecilia Russell
JOHANNESBURG, Dec 2 2024 (IPS)

The intersection of law, diplomacy, and science will come under the spotlight at the International Court of Justice hearings starting today (Monday, December 2, 2024) in The Hague as the court starts its deliberations into the obligations under international law of UN member states to protect people and ecosystems from climate change.

The case was started by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) with the support of Ishmael Kalsakau, the then prime minister of the Pacific island of Vanuatu. Now Vanautu will be the first of 98 countries that will make presentations during the fortnight of hearings, after which the court will give an advisory opinion.

Grace Malie, Tuvalu youth and climate activist speaking at COP29 in Baku, says the advisory opinion will set a “baseline that cannot be ignored,” especially for the youth in climate change-affected countries.

Tuvalu, a small low-lying atoll nation, faces an uncertain future due to sea level rise and it is estimated that by 2050 half the land area of the capital will be flooded by tidal waters. While it has ambitious adaptation plans, it also has developed a Te Ataeao Nei project (Future Now) that outlines how it will manage statehood should it face the worst-case scenario and sink due to rising sea levels.

“What this means for Pacific youth is that climate talks can no longer dismiss our existential concerns as negotiable.” It will foster an environment that secures the islands as “thriving” and “resilient,” rather than as “distant” memories.

The ruling, she believes, will secure the Pacific’s youths’ rights, including to remain rooted in culture, land, and heritage as protected by international law.

The ICJ’s hearings and advisory opinion are unique in that they do not focus solely on a single aspect of international law. Instead, they include the UN Charter, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment, and the duty to protect and preserve marine environments.

The court will give its opinion on the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system for present and future generations.

It will also consider the legal consequences of causing significant harm to the climate system and the environment and its impact on other states, including “small island developing states (SIDS), which are affected by climate change, and peoples and individuals, both present and future generations, affected by the adverse effects of climate change.”

Attorney General Graham Leung of Fiji says the court isn’t a substitute for negotiations, which are complex and painstakingly slow.

“The ICJ opinion will be precedent-setting. That is to say it will cover and discuss and analyze the legal issues and the scientific issues, and it will come to a very, very important or authoritative decision that will carry great moral weight.

While the court doesn’t have enforcement rights and while it won’t be legally binding, it will work through moral persuasion.

“It’s going to be a very brave country that will stand up against an advisory opinion on the International Court of Justice, because if you are in that minority that violates the opinion of the court, you can be regarded as a pariah or as an outlaw in the international community.”

The hearings come as the outcome of the COP29 negotiations was met with criticism, especially with regard to the financing of the impacts of climate change.

Ahead of the hearings, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead and COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said, “With most countries falling far short of their obligations to reduce emissions and protect and restore nature, this advisory opinion has the potential to send a powerful legal signal that states cannot ignore their legal duties to act.”

Other criticisms of the present status quo include a belief that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are inadequate, and climate finance, intended as a polluter pays mechanism, has failed to reach those most affected, with, for example, the Pacific countries only receiving 0.2 percent of the USD 100 billion a year climate finance pledge.

Cristelle Pratt, Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS), , agrees that the court’s decision will make it easier to negotiate on climate finance and loss and damage provisions by making that clearer.

It’s expected the ICJ to publish its final advisory opinion in 2025.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Farhang Jahanpour
OXFORD, Sep 5 2015 (IPS)

Article Six of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) makes it obligatory for nuclear states to get rid of their nuclear weapons as part of a bargain that requires the non-nuclear states not to acquire nuclear weapons. Apart from the NPT provisions, there have been a number of other rulings that have reinforced those requirements.

However, while nuclear states have vigorously pursued a campaign of non-proliferation, they have violated many NPT and other international regulations.

Farhang Jahanpour

An advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996 stated: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Nuclear powers have ignored that opinion.

The nuclear states, especially the United States and Russia, have further violated the Treaty by their efforts to upgrade and diversity their nuclear weapons. The United States has developed the “Reliable Replacement Warhead”, a new type of nuclear warhead to extend the viability of its nuclear arsenal.

The United States and possibly Russia are also developing tactical nuclear warheads with lower yields, which can be used on the battlefield without producing a great deal of radiation. Despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s pledge to reduce and ultimately abolish nuclear weapons, it has emerged that the United States is in the process of developing new categories of nuclear weapons, including B61-12 at a projected cost of 348 billion dollars over the next decade

India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea cannot be regarded as nuclear states. Since Article 9 of the NPT defines Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) as those that had manufactured and tested a nuclear device prior to 1 January 1967, it is not possible for India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea to be regarded as nuclear weapon states.“All nuclear powers have continued to strengthen and modernise their nuclear arsenals. While they have been vigorous in punishing, on a selective basis, the countries that were suspected of developing nuclear weapons, they have not lived up to their side of the bargain to get rid of their nuclear weapons”

All those countries are in violation of the NPT, and providing them with nuclear assistance, such as the U.S. agreement with India to supply it with nuclear reactors and advanced nuclear technology, constitutes violations of the Treaty. The same applies to U.S. military cooperation with Israel and Pakistan.

Nuclear states are guilty of proliferation 

Paragraph 14 of the binding U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 that called for the disarmament of Iraq also specified the establishment of a zone free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the Middle East.

It was clearly understood by all the countries that joined the U.S.-led coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait that after the elimination of Iraqi WMDs, Israel would be required to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. Israel – and by extension the countries that have not implemented that paragraph – have violated that binding resolution. Indeed, both the United States and Israel are believed to maintain nuclear weapons in the region.

During the apartheid era, Israel and South Africa collaborated in manufacturing nuclear weapons, with Israel leading the way. In 2010 it was reported that “the ‘top secret’ minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s Defence Minister P.W. Botha asked for nuclear warheads and the then Israeli Defence Minister Shimon Peres responded by offering them ‘in three sizes’.”

The documents were uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries. Israeli officials tried hard to prevent the publication of those documents. In 1977, South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the manufacturing of at least six nuclear bombs.

The 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference also called for “the early establishment by regional parties of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and all other WMDs and their delivery systems”. The international community has ignored these resolutions by not pressing Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. Indeed, any call for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East has been opposed by Israel and the United States.

The 2000 NPT Review Conference called on “India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) promptly and without condition”. States Parties also agreed to “make determined efforts” to achieve universality. Since 2000, little effort has been made to encourage India, Pakistan or Israel to accede as NNWS.

The declaration agreed by the Iranian government and visiting European Union foreign ministers (from Britain, France and Germany) that reached an agreement on Iran’s accession to the Additional Protocol and suspension of its enrichment for more than two years also called for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East.

The three foreign ministers made the following commitment: “They will cooperate with Iran to promote security and stability in the region including the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations.” Twelve years after signing that declaration, the three European countries and the international community have failed to bring about a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

While, during the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) refused to rule out first use of nuclear weapons due to the proximity of Soviet forces to European capitals, this policy has not been revised since the end of the Cold War. There have been repeated credible reports that the Pentagon has been considering the use of nuclear bunker-buster weapons to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites.

For the past 2,000 years and more, mankind has tried to define the requirements of a just war. During the past few decades, some of these principles have been enshrined in legally-binding international agreements and conventions. They include the Covenant of the League of Nations after the First World War, the 1928 Pact of Paris, and the Charter of the United Nations.

A few ideas are common to all these definitions, namely that any military action should be based on self-defence, be in compliance with international law, be proportionate, be a matter of last resort, and not target civilians and non-combatants.

Other ideas flow from these: the emphasis on arbitration and the renunciation of first resort to force in the settlement of disputes, and the principle of collective self- defence. It is difficult to see how the use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with any of these requirements. Yet, despite many international calls for nuclear disarmament, nuclear states have refused to abide by the NPT regulations and get rid of their nuclear weapons.

In his first major foreign policy speech in Prague on 5 April 2009, President Barack Obama spoke about his vision of getting rid of nuclear weapons. He said: “The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War… Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

He went on to say: “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons…”

Sadly, those noble sentiments have not been put into action. On the contrary, all nuclear powers have continued to strengthen and modernise their nuclear arsenals. While they have been vigorous in punishing, on a selective basis, the countries that were suspected of developing nuclear weapons, they have not lived up to their side of the bargain to get rid of their nuclear weapons. (END/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Roberto Savio
ROME, Mar 25 2015 (IPS)

The United Kingdom has been accused of “sleepwalking” into the Ukraine crisis – and the accusation comes from no less than the House of Lords, not usually considered a place of critical analysis.

In a scathing report, the upper house of the U.K. parliament has said that the United Kingdom, like the rest of the European Union, has sleepwalked into a very complex problem without looking into the possible consequences, letting bureaucrats taking critical political decisions.

Roberto Savio

It said that it was only when the conflict was well entrenched that political leaders decided to negotiate the Minsk ceasefire agreement, reached by Angela Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France, Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, with the notable absence of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

In fact, it was left up to bureaucrats of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to take decisions regarding Ukraine, the same kind of bureaucrats as those appointed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission who, with their usual arrogance, decided the European bailout conceded to Greece where it is widely known that the priority was to refund European (especially German) banks.

The media have a great responsibility in this situation. In all latter day conflicts, from Kosovo to Libya, the formula has been very simple. Let us divide conflicts into good and bad, let us repeat the declarations of the ‘good guys’ and demonise the ‘bad guys’. Let us not go into analytical disquisitions, complexities and side issues because readers do not like that. Let us be to the point and crisp.“The media have a great responsibility … the formula has been very simple. Let us divide conflicts into good and bad, let us repeat the declarations of the ‘good guys’ and demonise the ‘bad guys’. Let us not go into analytical disquisitions, complexities and side issues because readers do not like that”

The latest example. All media have been talking of the Iraqi army engaged in taking back the town of Kirkuk from the Caliphate, the Islamic State. But how many are also informing that two-thirds of the Iraqi army is actually made up of soldiers from Iran? And that the Americans engaged in overseeing this offensive are in fact accepting cooperation from Iran, formally an archenemy?

How many have been reporting that the ongoing negotiations over the nuclear capabilities of Iran are really based on the need to restore legitimacy to Iran, because it has become clear that without Iran there is no way to solve Arab conflicts? And how many have informed that all radical Muslims have received financial support from  Saudi  Arabia, which is intent on supporting Salafism, the Muslim school which is at the basis of al-Qaeda and now of the Islamic State?

Recent history shows the West has gone into a number of conflicts (Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2012), without looking beyond the immediate consequences, and without any consideration for long-term analysis. The costs of those conflicts have always exceeded the benefits foreseen. An auditor company could not certify any of those conflicts in terms of costs and benefit.

Let us start from the collapse of Yugoslavia, and let us remind ourselves that the West has three principles of international law under which to shield itself as a result of its actions.

One is the principle of inviolability of state borders, which was not applied to Serbia, but is now the case for Ukraine. The second is the principle of self-determination of people, which was used in Kosovo for the Albanian minority living in that part of Serbia but it is not considered valid now for the Russian populations of East Ukraine. The third is the right to intervene for humanitarian interventions, which was used first in Libya, and is now under consideration for Syria.

The drama of the Balkan conflicts was due to a very unilateral action by Germany, which decided to extrapolate Croatia and Slovenia from the Yugoslav federation as its zone of economic interest. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, pushed this in an unprecedented way throughout the West.

It was the first time that Germany had play an assertive role, with U.S. support, and it was a Cold War reflex – let us eliminate the only country left after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which still inspires itself to a socialist state and not to a market economy.

Serbia, which considered itself heir to the Kingdom of Serbia (out of which Josep Broz Tito had created the socialist Yugoslavia), intervened and a terrible conflict ensued, with civilians paying a dramatic cost.

That conflict renewed dormant ethnic and religious divisions, about which everybody knew, but Genscher, who was then no longer in the German government, explained at a meeting in which the author participated: “I never thought the Serbians would resist Europe.”

It is interesting to note in this context that just a few weeks ago, the International Court of Justice ruled that neither Serbia nor Croatia had engaged in a genocidal war. The news was reported by many media, but without a word of contextualisation.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been destroyed to implement the winning theory of “free market against socialism”. Did the creation of five mini-states improve the lives of the people? Not according to statistics, especially of youth unemployment, which was unknown in the days of Tito.

Then there was Iraq where, in the aftermath of the Twin Towers attack in September 2001, the rationale for attacking the country was based on assertions that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was both harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda, the group held responsible for the attack, and possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to the United States and its allies. These, which turned out to be lies, were blindly propagated by the media

But if, as is widely believed, petroleum was the cause, let us look at figures as an accounting company would do. That war is estimated to have cost at least two trillion dollars, without considering human life and physical destruction.

Iraq’s annual petroleum output at full pre-war capacity was 3.7 million barrels per day. Now a part of that is under the control of the Islamic State and Kurds have taken more than one-third under their control. But even at the full production, it would have taken more than 20 years to recoup the costs of the war.

It is, to say the least, unlikely that the United States would have had all that time – and since the war, has spent more than a further trillion dollars just in occupation and military costs.

And what about Afghanistan where there is no petroleum? Two trillion dollars have also been spent there … and the aim of that war was just to capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden!

Among others, it was said that democracy would be brought to Afghanistan. Now, after more than 50.000 deaths, nobody speaks any longer of institutional building, and the United States and its allies are simply trying to extricate themselves from a country whose future is bleak.

Now, the question I want to raise here is the following: what has happened to looking beyond the immediate consequences and long-term analysis in foreign policy?

Is it possible that nobody in power questioned the wisdom of an intervention in Libya for example, even assuming that Muammar Gaddafi was a villain to remove?  Did any of them ask what would happen afterwards? Did any of those in power ask what it would mean to support a war to remove Bashar al-Assad in Syria and what would happen after?

It appears that the House of Lords is right, we are taken into conflict by sleepwalkers. The West is responsible either for creating countries which are not viable (Kosovo), or for disintegrating countries (Yugoslavia and now probably Iraq), or for opening up areas of instability (Libya, Syria).

Without mentioning Ukraine where intervention is aimed at pushing the country towards Europe and NATO, thus provoking the potential retaliation of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Those errors have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced millions of people and, altogether, cost at least seven trillion dollars. Who is going to wake the sleepwalkers up? (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

View of the terraces in the Palestinian village of Battir, now a World Heritage site. Credit: Courtesy of Wikipedia

By Ido Liven
BATTIR, West Bank, Jul 13 2014 (IPS)

The Palestinian village of Battir, just six kilometres southwest of Jerusalem and a similar distance from Bethlehem, is the latest to be trapped in the gap between international recognition and Israel’s policies in the West Bank.

The village’s agricultural terraces covering the surrounding hill slopes, and the spring water-fed open irrigation channels that run through them, have been in use for centuries.

Last month, this unique landscape was designated a World Heritage site by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), making it only the second such Palestinian site after the Old City of Jerusalem site.

Already in autumn last year, the World Monuments Fund, an international organisation working to preserve important cultural heritage sites, had added Battir’s ancient terraces to its 2014 World Monuments Watch.Local residents, who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, have been campaigning against the six-kilometre long Separation Barrier plans since 2005, and fear the barrier will take a toll, not only on the centuries-old living landscape, but also on their way of life.

The decision to inscribe Battir in the World Heritage list comes amid Israeli plans to establish a new section of its Separation Barrier at the foot of the terraced hill slopes, cutting through the Palestinian village’s lands.

According to the Israeli military authorities, this section of the Separation Barrier is mainly intended to protect the railway on the margins of the village’s lands. Military representatives told the Israeli Supreme Court in 2011, there is “specific intelligence about attempts of terror organisations to infiltrate into Israel from this direction.”

However, they also reiterated that “the abovementioned security threat is not at all posed by residents of Battir, but from other hostile elements active in this area and those especially coming to the Battir area due to the fact the barrier route is still incomplete there.”

Local residents, however, who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, have been campaigning against the Separation Barrier plans since 2005, fearing the new six kilometre-long barrier will take a toll, not only on the centuries-old living landscape, but also on their way of life.

Over the years, their campaign has garnered much support, including from environmental groups such as the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME). Two perhaps unlikely other sources of support have been an Israeli field school in the settlement bloc of Gush Etzion and the Israeli Nature and Parks Authority (INPA).

Their environmental support might be genuine, but their objection to the Separation Barrier also fits well with their own political agenda, says Ofer Zalzberg, a Jerusalem-based senior analyst with the International Crisis Group.

INPA, in particular, has added its voice in support of protecting the Palestinian village’s traditional terraces, while managing a number of national parks – some of which are included in the tentative list of Palestine’s World Heritage sites.

In May last year, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered suspension of the works on the section of the barrier in Battir’s lands, but a final ruling is still pending. Now, the petitioners from the village and from FoEME are hopeful that the new World Heritage status could influence the court’s decision.

Nevertheless, Battir’s eggplants, vines and olives are closely intertwined with the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The World Heritage nomination was submitted under a special emergency procedure a day after the latest court session, and right before this year’s deadline.

But it could have been made already a year earlier if it had not been for a request from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, according to Israeli daily Haaretz. Freezing the Palestinian bid, the paper reported, was meant to allow the renewal of peace negotiations. “Senior Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem noted that Israel is keeping track of the Palestinian move and will try to prevent it,” Haaretz added.

Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that suspending Battir’s nomination was part of a deal whereby, in exchange, Israel would allow a UNESCO team to examine the Old City of Jerusalem, another World Heritage site.

Eventually, Battir’s application was successful and, in acknowledging the threat to the site, the World Heritage Committee also agreed to include it in its ‘in danger’ list, despite an expert opinion from the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the professional cultural heritage body advising UNESCO, which was generally sceptical about the merits of the site’s inscription.

However, Israel’s Ministry of Defence remains intent on going ahead with the barrier plan. “The barrier’s route in the area of Battir is intended to protect the citizens of Israel from terrorists and terror entering [the country],” read a statement from the ministry to IPS.

“The Security Barrier’s route will be established with no harm to natural assets,” it continued. “No terrace will be destroyed and the irrigation system will not be harmed. The IDF [Israel Defence Forces] is sensitive to the natural assets at the site, but it is first and foremost committed to the security of the citizens of Israel.”

And it does seem rather unlikely that Battir’s World Heritage inscription will have a significant impact on the Supreme Court ruling.  “I’d be surprised if, on these grounds, the Supreme Court categorically rejects building the barrier there,” Zalzberg told IPS.

“I think that’s not good for the image of Israel to be destroying World Heritage sites,” says Nader al-Khateeb, FoEME’s Palestinian co-director.

But Zalzberg believes such designation would not be seen by the Israeli government as a major factor. “There are already places where Israel has taken its own stance on things that are much more serious in the eyes of the international community,” he said.

Rather, an Israeli decision to go ahead with the barrier in Battir, thus defying the U.N. agency, “could be part of a trend where Israel further pushes UNESCO to the wall on anything related to managing sites, possibly also in Jerusalem.”

From the court proceedings, it seems that a barrier will eventually be built. In its latest session on the case, in January, the Supreme Court focused on ways to mitigate damage to the terraces, for example by examining the option of removing one of the train tracks, and by ordering the Israeli military to allow Battir farmers access to their lands through gates in the barrier.

Opponents, however, are concerned about additional, collateral damage to the ancient terraces landscape from the construction process involving heavy machinery.

Akram Bader, mayor of Battir, is concerned that building the barrier would not only take a toll on the local cultural heritage, but also on the peaceful situation in the area. “Through the last 64 years there have been no incidents in the area, so why are they saying they want to build a Security Barrier?” he asks.

In fact, establishing the barrier, ostensibly to ensure Israel’s security, could lead to violence, Bader warns. “If the terraces are damaged, it means that the people will not think about peace in this area. They will change their minds about it.”

Israel is, at least formally, committed to protecting cultural heritage in the West Bank, as a member of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and also as one of the earliest signatories of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Meanwhile, Battir might not be the last case of its kind. At least two proposals on Palestine’s World Heritage Tentative List could overlap the route of Israel’s Separation Barrier. In one, Umm Al-Rihan Forest, the barrier already exists. In another, El-Bariyah, also known as the Judean desert, plans to establish a stretch of the Separation Barrier triggered vocal protest from Israeli environmentalists six years ago.

In response, Amir Peretz, then Defence Minister and today Environmental Protection Minister, ordered works to be halted.

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice had issued an Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Separation Barrier, concluding that it was “contrary to international law” and calling on Israel to cease its construction. Exactly ten years later, Israel’s Separation Barrier looks set to defy the international community once again.