The concept of international law has in recent years been stretched to the point of absurdity, and the latest decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) shows just how unwise Keir Starmer’s government has been in conceding power to unelected organisations such as the UN. Sitting in The Hague, a panel of judges led by ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa, a Japanese legal professor, ruled this week in favour of a group of Pacific island law students seeking the right to sue other nations they deem responsible for man-made climate change.
The ruling opens the door for countries who consider they are at risk from global warming to sue Britain for reparations. Some 132 nations supported the legal action; the potential for all of these nations to seek compensation from the UK and other western countries is mind-boggling.
Playing into the hands of activists who would like to blame Britain and other developed nations for the ills of the modern world, the ICJ bases its judgement on the theory that rising sea levels are attributable to the manufacturing processes which have been responsible for much of humankind’s progress since the Industrial Revolution.
It’s a theory which is still contested by scientists and ultimately impossible to prove. But in signing up to climate treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, and international accords at the annual Cop summits, Britain has effectively accepted responsibility for contributing to global warming, pledging not only to reduce UK emissions but also to make big payments to developing countries to enable them to introduce so-called “green technologies”.
Always keen to burnish their environmental credentials on the world stage, recent Conservative governments have been as eager as Labour to sign up to such agreements. But such virtue-signalling comes at a price. The millions of pounds handed over each year in pursuit of these accords will be dwarfed by the cost of climate reparations following this week’s ruling.
Responding to the ICJ’s decision the Foreign Office has asserted that the judgment is “non-binding” and “advisory”. But the “advisory” nature of the ICJ’s ruling on the Chagos Islands did not deter the Labour government from surrendering those islands to Mauritius, despite the huge financial cost and risks to our future defence capabilities. Insisting that in so doing the UK was meeting its obligations under international law, the Prime Minister has surely invited other nations to embark on litigation against this country based on ICJ judgments.
Indeed, the supremacy of international law has been made quite clear by Keir Starmer’s old friend Richard Hermer. On being ennobled and appointed as Attorney General last year, Hermer gave instructions to the government’s legal department to comply with international law, requiring that Parliament should not legislate contrary to it.
Undermining the sovereignty of our government in this way does not appear to trouble Lord Hermer, and it will certainly provide plenty of work for his former colleagues. Barristers from his old sets at Doughty Street and Matrix chambers have been leading the successful climate claims at the Hague and will likely be first in line for the next round of litigation seeking reparations. As one of these barristers, Jennifer Robinson, declared: “This is a huge win” which “is going to change the face of climate advocacy.”
It certainly threatens to be an expensive decision for the UK. Prime Minister, you have put us in the hands of the international courts, but where will you find the cash to pay the reparations?
The concept of international law has in recent years been stretched to the point of absurdity, and the latest decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) shows just how unwise Keir Starmer’s government has been in conceding power to unelected organisations such as the UN. Sitting in The Hague, a panel of judges led by ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa, a Japanese legal professor, ruled this week in favour of a group of Pacific island law students seeking the right to sue other nations they deem responsible for man-made climate change.
The ruling opens the door for countries who consider they are at risk from global warming to sue Britain for reparations. Some 132 nations supported the legal action; the potential for all of these nations to seek compensation from the UK and other western countries is mind-boggling.
Playing into the hands of activists who would like to blame Britain and other developed nations for the ills of the modern world, the ICJ bases its judgement on the theory that rising sea levels are attributable to the manufacturing processes which have been responsible for much of humankind’s progress since the Industrial Revolution.
It’s a theory which is still contested by scientists and ultimately impossible to prove. But in signing up to climate treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, and international accords at the annual Cop summits, Britain has effectively accepted responsibility for contributing to global warming, pledging not only to reduce UK emissions but also to make big payments to developing countries to enable them to introduce so-called “green technologies”.
Always keen to burnish their environmental credentials on the world stage, recent Conservative governments have been as eager as Labour to sign up to such agreements. But such virtue-signalling comes at a price. The millions of pounds handed over each year in pursuit of these accords will be dwarfed by the cost of climate reparations following this week’s ruling.
Responding to the ICJ’s decision the Foreign Office has asserted that the judgment is “non-binding” and “advisory”. But the “advisory” nature of the ICJ’s ruling on the Chagos Islands did not deter the Labour government from surrendering those islands to Mauritius, despite the huge financial cost and risks to our future defence capabilities. Insisting that in so doing the UK was meeting its obligations under international law, the Prime Minister has surely invited other nations to embark on litigation against this country based on ICJ judgments.
Indeed, the supremacy of international law has been made quite clear by Keir Starmer’s old friend Richard Hermer. On being ennobled and appointed as Attorney General last year, Hermer gave instructions to the government’s legal department to comply with international law, requiring that Parliament should not legislate contrary to it.
Undermining the sovereignty of our government in this way does not appear to trouble Lord Hermer, and it will certainly provide plenty of work for his former colleagues. Barristers from his old sets at Doughty Street and Matrix chambers have been leading the successful climate claims at the Hague and will likely be first in line for the next round of litigation seeking reparations. As one of these barristers, Jennifer Robinson, declared: “This is a huge win” which “is going to change the face of climate advocacy.”
It certainly threatens to be an expensive decision for the UK. Prime Minister, you have put us in the hands of the international courts, but where will you find the cash to pay the reparations?