https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/world-court-vs-trump-admin-on-climate-change/
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body that is also known as the World Court, has become an utter embarrassment by violating the fundamental principles of a fair and impartial judiciary.
In 2024, the ICJ took the side of the Palestinian terrorists and their supporters by outrageously allowing a bogus complaint filed by South Africa against Israel to proceed rather than dismissing it outright. The complaint falsely accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. In deciding that South Africa’s case against Israel could move forward, the ICJ gave credence to the blood libel claiming that Israel’s legitimate defense of its own people to prevent another October 7th-style Palestinian terrorist rampage constituted genocide by Israel.
Now the ICJ has taken the side of leftwing, progressive climate activists by issuing its “Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change.” The United Nations General Assembly had requested the opinion.
ICJ’s President, Justice Yuji Iwasawa, described the climate change case as “unlike any that have previously come before the court.”
The case was not simply about a “legal problem,” Justice Iwasawa said, but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The ICJ had no business hearing and deciding this case in the first place. Courts are supposed to confine themselves to adjudicating concrete legal controversies between parties, not acting as a quasi-legislature. Justice Iwasawa sounds more like a progressive politician pushing the radical Green New Deal agenda than a judge who is supposed to interpret the law as written. The ICJ opinion might as well have been written by a climate advocacy organization.
“A complete solution” to what the ICJ described as the “daunting and self-inflicted problem” of climate change requires, according to its opinion, “human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits, comforts, and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.”
It is up to each sovereign nation, not an international court, to balance the potential gravity of any environmental concerns with the economic welfare and wellbeing of its people. Such tradeoffs are the responsibility of each nation’s duly authorized policymakers, whose decisions are supposed to be made in the best interests of their own people.