The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is being asked to give an opinion on whether all nations have the responsibility to ensure that emissions of greenhouse gases on their territories don’t harm other nations
The initiative is being spearheaded by the small Pacific island nation of Palau.
President Johnson Toribiong of Palau warned on Friday that within a generation, rising seas threaten to swallow entire countries along with their unique histories, languages and cultures.
Speaking at the UN in New York, he said in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases which are blamed for climate change, his country will generate 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources.
“But the truth is that nothing we or other Pacific countries will do will stem the rising tides or the floods of global emissions. We need everyone to buy in or it won’t work. An ICJ advisory opinion will give us the guidance we need on what all states must do. I am pleased that deliberations on a possible resolution have begun here in New York but there is a long way to go.”
“But the truth is that nothing we or other Pacific countries will do will stem the rising tides or the floods of global emissions.”
Of course, this is true of the US, China, and all of Europe as well. Man and his culture are much smaller than Nature, and our influences on climate are laughably different from the bogeyman image in the green press. Is the Palauan president a cynical rent seeker, or is it impossible for him to find advisers who have a grasp of the concept of credible scientific evidence?
I would suggest that this little island nation relax. To date there are no reliable numbers on sea level increase. In fact the monitoring systems suggest that sea level isn’t uniform and there is no measurable increase. But if he is all that concerned perhaps he should spend some of his salary as president on shovels.
The thing to worry about is whether the Court will go for this. Check out the rules of the Court at
http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0
Basically, only states [nations] can be parties to disputes, so this is Palau vs. All Other Nations. The Court’s jurisdiction extends only to international law ['binding' customs] and ‘treaties and conventions’. The Court may determine facts which establish a breach of these has occurred, and levy sanctions.
However, this only applies to nations who are parties to the Statute that establishes jurisdiction. So, those nations who have not signed up to accept the Court’s decisions aren’t bound by its decisions. The result: the case is actually Palau vs. Nearly All Other Nations. (Articles 36 – 38)
Here’s a kicker: “The Court can only deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its jurisdiction. No State can therefore be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it has in some manner or other consented thereto.” http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1
The Court has jurisdiction due to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCC), and over parties who have ratified the Convention. The parties are “195 (all United Nations members except South Sudan, as well as Niue, the Cook Islands and the European Union)”. See generally,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_framework_convention_on_climate_change A nation which is a UN member, and has ratified the Convention, those who ratified it can be considered as having ‘constented to’ its jurisdiction.
This unfortunately includes the United States, Australia and Britain. The full list of signatories to the Convention can be found at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php
In the end, the question will most likely be whether the UNFCC is clear enough, on certain points, to justify sanctions for violation of the Convention.
I like that shovel remark, edward, and it is far better money spent than buying an ice machine to lower sea level. Especially when the ice machine is supposed to work by reducing the level of CO2 in the machine. Bad investment policy. Then again, it’s not Paluan money they’re looking to get.
About the proposal and the court – Define harm and define justice. Then get back to me on why the international version of your brother colorlessly and oderlessly flatulating in the car needs to be resolved in court.
Get back to us when sea level rise actually becomes a problem then we can discuss it.
They can further reduce “gobal” CO2 emissions by banning all travel to and from their islands except by sail boat or row boat.
We want free money; give it to us. The basic socialist function of the UN in the first place. Disgraceful. The UN needs to be de-funded. Evict everyone from the building in NY and rent it out.