In a highly anticipated and deeply controversial ruling, the top United Nations court issued an opinion on July 23 claiming that governments have a “legal duty” under “international law” to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, also known as the gas of life. The decision is being praised by globalists and climate alarmists, but ridiculed by skeptics. The implications are enormous.
According to the 500-page ruling, which is considered “advisory” but is expected to influence policy worldwide, all governments “have a legal duty to prevent environmental harm by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.” Failure to regulate and control CO2 emissions may amount to an “internationally wrongful act,” the court said.
In other words: Reject the UN climate regime at your peril. Though President Trump works to roll back the very measures demanded by the UN outfit, the implications for governance worldwide are hard to overstate. As The New American reported six months ago, experts say this case may be the most significant ever heard by the global body.
“Wrongful Act”
The head of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which describes itself as the “World Court,” did not mince words. “Failure of a state [government] to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said, calling alleged man-made global warming “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
Speaking at The Hague, Judge Iwasawa claimed international law requires governments to work together to rein in human activity and prosperity under the guise of fighting global warming. “States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” he said. “Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited…. The court presents this opinion with a hope that its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to solve the ongoing climate crisis.”
Cosmic Joke
Critics ridiculed the ruling. Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), perhaps the world’s top astrophysicist and who recently broke away from Harvard, could barely contain himself in comments to The New American about the opinion.
“This ICJ ruling must be a joke at a cosmic proportion: Not only that the ICJ has no understanding of the science of climate change, but to threaten America First Nation that is now being run by President Donald Trump?” said Soon, who has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers debunking climate hysteria. “Since when has ICJ or the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proved that rising gas of life can cause all the computer model-produced imaginary disasters?”
Climate Depot chief Marc Morano, described by climate alarmists as their preeminent foe, also ridiculed the ruling. “Facing the insurmountable collapse of their global climate agenda with the overwhelming majority of nations not even trying to pretend to meet the climate ‘obligations’ anymore, the UN ‘high court’ has ruled nations are compelled and have no choice but to comply or pay ‘reparations’ and fund ‘climate justice’ programs,” the told The New American. “Thank God for Donald Trump leading the global collapse of the UN climate bullcrap!”
Rent-a-Mobs
Outside the court, though, taxpayer-funded rent-a-mobs described as “climate activists” hailed the decision as a major victory and turning point. The activists even held a banner that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.” Legal analysts are already discussing the fallout and how this ruling will affect the world in dramatic ways.
As requested by many governments, the UN court claimed that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a “human right.” Therefore, it ruled that governments must actively work to limit so-called greenhouse-gas emissions. Those that refuse — President Trump, for example — could be perpetrating an “internationally wrongful act” that violates people’s “human rights.”
Control of Life Itself
Because every human activity including breathing results in “emissions,” adherence to the new ruling would amount to giving governments a blank check over every activity — and even life itself. Despite the UN’s hysteria, though, scientists know human emissions of CO2 make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. Countless scientists have told The New American that the planet is starving for CO2.
The UN court disagrees, and warned that there will be consequences for those who do not fall in line. Among other claims, the court said governments impacted by alleged man-made climate change may be able to seek reparations and legal redress. The court also found that governments and taxpayers in wealthier nations should be expected to assist the governments misruling poorer nations to deal with the alleged problem.
“Today, we’ve entered a new era of climate accountability,” argued Elisa Morgera, UN’s special rapporteur on climate change and human rights. “The world’s highest court has made it clear: climate-harming activities violate international law and people’s rights. Governments must cut emissions to protect people’s lives and they must provide redress for the damage they’ve already caused.”
“The right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment is inseparable from the right to life, health, and dignity. The court’s ruling reflects this truth,” she continued. “The path for big emitters is clear: act now to phase out fossil fuels, support affected communities, and align national laws and finance with international obligations.”
Lawsuits Ahead
While the ICJ has no power to enforce its opinion, experts say the implications of the ruling will be far-reaching. For one thing, governments of poorer nations supposedly harmed by alleged man-made warming may start filing formal claims against wealthier nations such as the United States. Companies may be in the crosshairs, too. And domestic courts worldwide are expected to cite the ICJ’s opinion in their own rulings going forward.
Vanuatu’s Prime Minister, Jotham Napat, whose government brought the original case with support from the UN General Assembly, hailed the opinion as “a pivotal moment for climate justice.” Supposedly “vulnerable nations” have long been demanding a legal mandate — and now they have it, he warned. His government had asked the UN court to declare activities that supposedly cause climate change (basically everything) to be “illegal.”
Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the first female president of Ireland and a member of the UN’s “Elders” group, celebrated the importance of the opinion, too. “Today, the tables have turned,” she said in a statement after the ruling. “The World’s highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused.”
Paradigm Shift
Robinson, who told The New American in an interview in Brazil more than a decade ago that reducing the world’s population was an important element of solving climate change, emphasized that governments must comply. Calling the ruling a “gift” to the “global community,” she said it was “a legal turning point that can accelerate the path toward a safer, fairer future.”
“The Court has made it clear: governments must hit the accelerator to protect the right of present and future generations to a safe climate — and that includes reining in corporations and financial actors,” she added. “The end of the fossil fuel era is coming, and today marks a major milestone on that journey.”
Of course, this is about more than just economic and energy policy changes. In fact, this ruling is an attempt to bring about a legal transformation and paradigm shift in how people are governed. This unelected international body is now purporting to issue mandates on national energy policy, global wealth transfers, corporate regulation, and even potential global reparations for alleged victims.
Power Grabs
Meanwhile, with the 30th annual UN Conference of the Parties climate summit coming up in Brazil, the decision is expected to provide political and legal cover for even more breathtaking power grabs by governments and the UN. The upcoming summit, which The New American plans to attend, is being touted as the largest and one of the most significant in the history of what players in the legal case describe as the UN climate regime.
ICJ boss Iwasawa claimed the ruling has major implications for the upcoming summit, at which governments are supposed to announced their new UN-approved Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the climate regime. But while these were framed as voluntary measures to be decided by each government in accordance with the UN’s agenda, the court argues that they must act. “The Court considers that the discretion of parties in the progression of their NDCs is limited,” said Iwasawa, adding that governments “are obliged” to “ensure that their NDCs fulfill their obligations under the Paris Agreement.”
“In the current context, because of the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change, the standard of due diligence to be applied in preparing NDCs is stringent,” he claimed. “This means that each party has to do its utmost to ensure that the NDCs put forward represent its highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the agreement.”
Extremist Opinion
The unanimous opinion echoes that extremism. “Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,” the court warned, a clear threat.
While the UN and American politicians have long emphasized that the climate schemes are voluntary on the part of governments, the new ruling represents a major shift in tone. Under the court’s opinion, climate action is now part of upholding human rights. That means adopting the UN’s preferred controls on human activity will become subject to global scrutiny under the emerging international system of jurisprudence.
Prosecutions Coming
Eventually, on the current trajectory, prosecutions at UN kangaroo courts should be expected. Already, world leaders accused of violating human rights are routinely subjected to judicial processes by those courts. At this moment, former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte is sitting in a cell in The Hague, on trial at the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC).
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government has never even approved the Rome statute acceding to the ICC, is being charged with alleged violations of human rights by the court as well. And as this magazine has been documenting for decades, the ICC believes it has universal jurisdiction over every person on Earth for undefined crimes including “aggression.” Naturally, that includes Americans, as ICC officials have made clear.
U.S. Opposition
The ruling comes as the Trump administration works overtime to rein in U.S. government involvement in climate action, both domestically and internationally. From leaving UN agreements on climate including the Paris Agreement, to reversing domestic regulatory assaults on U.S. industry supposedly to save the climate, the administration has been bold.
Ridiculing the climate hoax for more than a decade, Trump even declared before taking office for his second term that a top priority for his movement and the country is to destroy the fraud. And he has been fulfilling that commitment with far more seriousness than during his first term. What that means in light of the new ruling remains to be determined. But globalists hope this will add to the pressure on the United States to submit.
Environmental leader Craig Rucker, president of the market-oriented environmental group Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), suggested this was a sign of desperation by the UN. Celebrating U.S. efforts to undermine the man-made warming narrative and the broader UN agenda connected to it, Rucker told The New American that he did not think the UN’s latest bid to advance the schemes would not succeed.
“The UN is looking for relevance in what has become a Trump-centric world,” the said. “From quelling international conflicts and talks about tariffs to strengthening NATO commitments and promoting AI exports, all eyes are on whatever Trump is doing and no one is talking about the UN, climate change, or the Paris Accord anymore. This ICJ ruling is clearly an attempt by internationalists and those on the Far Left to simply place themselves back onto center stage. It won’t work.”
More Globalist Court Rulings
Of course, the ICJ is not alone. In recent years, there have been a growing number of legal cases in which courts claimed governments must do their bidding. Just this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared that governments must “protect and restore” ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights claimed Switzerland’s refusal to fight climate change with enough vigor denied “climate-protection rights.” National and state courts have issued similar rulings, too.
Each of these rulings by rogue courts chip away at traditional concepts of self-government, individual rights, free markets, and even nation-state autonomy. All of them involve ceding more and more authority to unaccountable international tribunals and organizations, many dominated by communists, pagans, and mass murderers. The ICJ’s latest opinion — the most sweeping yet — now raises the impact of this jurisprudential tsunami to an unprecedented scale. And it will get worse if Trump and other leaders do not act.
Critics argue the opinion represents a dangerous usurpation of global regulatory power by an unelected court, which now claims to be able to define “state obligations” on climate. And if that court can do this on climate, it can certainly do so on other issues going forward — surveillance, trade, speech, gun rights, education, and more. For instance, just last month the UN denounced U.S. education for not adhering to UN demands. It is a recipe for disaster.
Climate Reparations
In fact, even as the UN court set the stage or future reparations and prosecutions over climate, UN Secretary-General António Guterres was agitating for reparations to African governments for slavery and colonialism. Interestingly, only Europeans and North Americans are in the crosshairs, despite Arab and Islamic slavery and colonialism in Africa being far more horrific, and still being practiced to this day.
“Africa is a continent of boundless energy and possibility. But for too long, the colossal injustices inflicted by enslavement, the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism have been left unacknowledged and unaddressed,” he said before tying that into the need for climate reparations, too. “African countries did not cause the climate crisis. Yet the effects of our heating planet are wreaking havoc across the continent.”
Human Rights “Endangered”
The latest ruling was the culmination of a 2019 campaign launched by taxpayer-funded astroturf groups using Pacific Islander students as useful idiots. At the UN climate summit in Egypt in December 2022, “youth climate justice” leader Mert Taner Kumru told The New American that the self-styled World Court must issue this ruling because human rights are supposedly endangered by human CO2 emissions. At the time, it sounded preposterous.
“What we want is to make it clear by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that the impacts of the climate crisis are being — with regards to our human rights — are being explained by the Court so that we can use this in national future cases,” Kumru said. “We need an advisory opinion to actually bring climate justice to the courts and to the world.” Asked questions about the science underpinning the agenda and the supposed solutions, Kumru deflected.
Urged on by the students, the UN General Assembly asked the World Court to offer guidance on the issue and to clarify the international law surrounding it. Multiple UN agreements, conventions, and other multilateral instruments were cited as sources of relevant law, despite many of those documents never mentioning climate or even the environment.
Time to Fight Back
The U.S. Congress and President Trump can do a lot to push back on these escalating power grabs — and they must do so for liberty, sovereignty, self-government, and Christian civilization to survive. Some state and federal American lawmakers are preparing statements and efforts to denounce attempts to weaponize the “illegitimate” ICJ opinion. But much more will be needed.
Ultimately, as long as the U.S. government remains involved and U.S. taxpayers keep footing the bill, the UN will continue to make bolder attacks. At this very moment, it is working to impose global carbon taxes on international shipping despite the United States rejecting the scheme. Only a full withdrawal from the UN and its agencies can neutralize the threat.
Related articles:
Top UN “Court” to Issue Landmark Ruling on “Climate Change”
UN Tax on Shipping to Fund Global Tyranny
The COP29 Deal: Carbon Markets & Trillions in Reparations
UN Court “Orders” United States to Lift Some Sanctions on Iran
Justice Breyer’s New Book Advocates Foreign Law in U.S. Courts
UN Court Seeks Prison Term for Journalist
