The draft resolution urges states to fulfil their obligations in regard to climate change, in line with the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July 2024. These include the adoption of nationally determined contributions of atmospheric carbon to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting the global average temperature increase to well below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

The draft resolution also calls on UN member states to phase out fossil fuels, and to protect communities subject to forced displacement induced by climate change. This is a question of particular concern to Pacific island nations such as Vanuatu.

The draft resolution would also create an “International Register of Damage,” providing a transparent record of loss and damage linked to climate change, as Climate Home News reports. This echoes the ICJ’s advisory opinion that injured states may claim compensation for the non-compliance of climate change obligations.

Negotiations regarding the draft resolution are now underway. The UN General Assembly is expected to vote on the draft resolution at the end of March. Candy Ofime, climate justice researcher at Amnesty International, said: “This is a vital moment for states to show they stand on the side of climate justice—not delay, weaken, or turn away from their legal obligations and moral duty.”

The Amnesty statement called governments out for weakening global action on climate, denouncing the recent rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and removal of greenhouse gas regulations by the administration of US President Donald Trump. The administration described the deregulation as “restoring the American Dream” by saving over $1.3 trillion, and making commutes and business operations more affordable for American citizens.

The Trump administration reportedly urged other governments to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw its draft resolution. According to Al Jazeera, a cable sent by the US Department of State indicated the administration’s “strong objection” to the draft resolution and described the ICJ opinion as “misguided claims of international legal obligations.” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s environment minister, reposted Al Jazeera’s article on X (formerly Twitter).

Prompt government actions are urgently necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement goal. A November 2025 report predicted that even if governments realize their “highest possible ambition,” the global average temperature will still have peaked at 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels for 40 years before declining to 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

From JURIST, Feb. 14. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the UN climate process, and the World Court advisory opinion.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

The closing plenary on Nov. 23 saw nearly 200 parties endorse a political outcome that elevates adaptation and resilience as core pillars of the United Nations climate process, formally the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The package references the Global Goal on Adaptation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, and an expanded “action agenda” to scale finance for locally led projects such as resilient agriculture and “nature‑based solutions.”

However, efforts to secure a negotiated roadmap away from fossil fuels collapsed after days of deadlock. The final compromise text omits any explicit commitment to “transition away from” or “phase out” coal, oil and gas—despite sustained pressure from a large coalition of states and civil society groups to include such language.

The outcome is weaker on this point than earlier UN climate summits, including the 2021 Glasgow talks, where the resolution urged countries to phase out oil subsidies. In Belém, the major oil-producing countries resisted binding language, while many developing countries tied their support for any resolution to assurances on finance and equity.

In the run‑up to COP30, UN experts urged that climate action must integrate a human rights approach, warning that weak mitigation targets and under‑funded adaptation measures risk violating the rights of communities facing floods, desertification and displacement. Small island states echoed those concerns on the floor in Belém, arguing that a finance‑heavy deal without a fossil-fuel exit pathway jeopardizes the Paris Agreement’s 1.5° Celsius temperature limit.

Activists on the scene, many of whom had mobilized outside the previous climate summits in Dubai and Baku, pointed back to those campaigns, in which protesters demanded urgent climate action and faster fossil phase‑outs. In Belém, youth groups and indigenous leaders welcomed the adaptation funding pledge but described the absence of a fossil roadmap as a “failure of courage.”

The Belém outcome does not amend the Paris Agreement, but will guide its implementation by shaping expectations around national climate plans, adaptation strategies, and financial outlays. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said in his opening speech to delegates on Nov. 10 that the credibility of COP30 will ultimately depend on whether parties translate promises on money, resilience and transition into enforceable laws and budgets once they return home.

From JURIST, Nov. 24. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 65 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 66!

Image: blende12/Pixabay

The West Papua National Liberation Army, armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (jointly known as the TPNPB-OPM), claimed responsibility in April for the death of 17 illegal gold miners operating on their territory. The Indonesian military has responded by escalating its ongoing campaign, called Operation Habema, in all six provinces of West Papua, especially in the Central Highlands, claiming the deaths of numerous separatist fighters. The recent surge in hostilities has prompted the declaration of a state of emergency in Intan Jaya Regency, Central Papua province.

The conflict between Indonesian authorities and the Free Papua Movement dates back to the controversial 1969 Act of Free Choice, which integrated West Papua into Indonesia—without the free consent of the Papuans, the TPNPB-OPM charges. Recent military operations have led to significant civilian displacement, with reports indicating that over 76,000 Papuans have fled their homes since 2018. In addition to displacement, there have been alarming accounts of human rights abuses.

International humanitarian law requires all parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants during a conflict. Civilians must never be targeted, and all feasible measures must be taken to minimize harm to them and to civilian infrastructure.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at HRW, said: “Concerned governments need to press the Prabowo [Subianto] administration and Papuan separatist armed groups to abide by the laws of war… Both the Indonesian military and Papuan armed groups need to comply with international standards that protect civilians.”

From JURIST, May 31. Used with permission.

Photo: TPNPB-OPM via Tempo

The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ was submitted in March 2023, following the unanimous adoption of Resolution 77/276 by the UN General Assembly. The resolution sought the court’s guidance on the obligations of sates to “ensure the protection of the climate system…for present and future generations,” and the legal implications of “acts and omissions [that] have caused significant harm to the climate system.” The second question especially addresses the international community’s legal responsibilities to small island developing States, which are disproportionately threatened by the adverse effects of climate change.

Article 96 of the UN Charter serves as a legal basis for the General Assembly, Security Council and specialized agencies to submit legal questions to the ICJ. Article 65 of the ICJ Statute further establishes the court’s jurisdiction to provide advisory opinions. Although non-binding, they serve as authoritative statements on international law.

The request for an advisory opinion was initially inspired by a grassroots movement in Vanuatu and subsequently advanced by its government. This island state in the South Pacific, in collaboration with nations such as Costa Rica, Sierra Leone, Angola, Germany, the Federated States of Micronesia, Bangladesh and others, played a key role in drafting the resolution. The adverse consequences of climate change are well recognized, yet substantial discrepancies persist in the international community’s approach to mitigating its impacts. Emissions from high-polluting countries like the US, Canada, Russia and China have accelerated climate change and its harmful consequences, disproportionately affecting small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable due to their “geographical circumstances and level of development.” The unanimous agreement of all 193 UNGA member states to refer the request to the ICJ highlights the critical importance of addressing this global issue.

Remarkably, the international community’s participation has been unprecedented, with 91 written submissions, 62 follow-up comments, and 98 states, along with 12 authorized international organizations, set to engage in the oral proceedings.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected in 2025, it is not the first international judicial body to address states’ legal obligations regarding climate change. Earlier this year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion, urging states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent marine pollution. This opinion has set a precedent for future climate-related litigation and may influence the ICJ’s forthcoming decision. Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) is preparing its advisory opinion on climate change, following public hearings in June. The IACHR opinion is expected to contribute further to this evolving area of international law.

From JURIST, Dec. 2. Used with permission.

Photo: ICJ

If enacted, the Treaty Principles Bill would replace the existing principles of the Treaty, first established by New Zealand’s parliament in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and subsequently clarified by the courts and Waitangi Tribunal. The principles were developed to give legal recognition to the obligations arising from te Tiriti/the Treaty, which (like other treaties) is not directly enforceable in New Zealand’s courts.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori (New Zealand’s indigenous people), extended to the Crown a limited power of kāwanatanga (governance) over New Zealand’s quickly expanding British settler population while guaranteeing the Māori tino rangatiratanga (ultimate power and authority) over their lands, their villages and all their treasured possessions, and granting Māori the rights and privileges of British subjects. As the Waitangi Tribunal found in its Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, the Treaty was not a document of cession but rather created a partnership between the parties, who agreed to share power.

The proposed principles that will be given to legislative drafters are:

1. Civil Government: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
2. Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognizes the rights that hapū (clans) and iwi (tribes) had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.
3. Right to Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

Official advice released Sept. 11 from the Ministry of Justice criticized the proposed principles for being inconsistent with te Tiriti/the Treaty. It recommended maintaining the status quo to avoid damaging the relationship between the government and Māori.

The proposed principles bear little resemblance to the original document. For example, the first proposed principle includes no reference to Māori signatories of te Tiriti and instead presents the agreement of kāwanatanga as a unilateral statement of governing authority.

Despite minor alterations to the proposed principles from previous ACT policy, scholar Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown (Te Aupōuri) charges that “the effect of the Treaty Principles Bill will be the same—it will radically change the legal and constitutional status of te Tiriti o Waitangi, essentially erasing it.”

This guidance comes less than a month after the Waitangi Tribunal, an inquisitorial body that investigates Crown breaches of the principles of the Treaty, called for the proposed bill’s abandonment.

At the celebration of the 18th coronation of the Māori King Tūheitia last month, coalition partners the New Zealand National Party and New Zealand First ruled out voting for the bill past the first reading stage, raising obstacles for the policy.

A draft version of the Treaty Principles Bill is expected to be complete by October 9.

From Jurist, Sept. 12. Used with permission.

Note: King Tūheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII died Aug. 30 at the age of 69. (The Guardian, NYT)

Photo: Waitangi Day celebrations, Feb. 6, 2006, at Waitangi, Paihia. Via Wikimedia Commons

Ecocide has had little focus from policymakers, despite the severe environmental emergency facing the planet. Defending the environment is a risky business in many places, as new research from the Global Witness campaign group shows: 2,000 environmental activists—often from indigenous communities—have been killed since 2012, with 196 murders in 2023. There were 79 such killings last year just in Colombia, which was by far the deadliest country for green activists, as environmental struggle intersects with the dynamics of te country’s long-running armed conflict. Environmental activists are, however, making inroads in another conflict zone, with Greenpeace opening an office in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv.

From The New Humanitarian, Sept. 13.

See our last report on the initiative to make ecocide an international crime, and our feature, “Environmental War Crimes in Ukraine.”

Global Witness also found last year that Colombia led the world in slaylings of environmental activsts. The record has also been held in recent years by Brazil and Honduras.

Photo: Stefan Müller via Wikimedia Commons

In his opening statement at the conference, Browne also assailed the world’s giant oil companies:

Isn’t it high time to end fossil fuel subsidies and to make these companies accountable to reduce emissions and to accelerate the transitions to renewable energy resources to protect lives and livelihoods? Shouldn’t a global oil tax be levied on these companies which are consistently enjoying supernormal profits?

The first international conference of SIDS nations was held in 1994 in Barbados. The Barbados Programme of Action for Small Island Developing States was adopted during the conference, emphasizing the need for a sustainable approach for such nations in adressing the climate crisis. The second SIDS conference was held in Mauritius in 2005. The Mauritius Declaration noted the threat of rising sea levels to the very survival of member states. The last and third SIDS conference was held in 2014 in Samoa. The Samoa Pathway again emphasized the growing urgency of these concerns.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has also called on the developed nations to “honor their commitments to provide $100 billion a year to developing countries for climate support and fully replenish the Green Climate Fund.”

From Jurist, May 28. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the UN climate process, the Paris Agreement, and the dilemmas faced by small island nations.

Photo of Vanuatu: David Cobbin via NUPI

Azerbaijan, now facing accusations of genocide against Armenians, suddenly rallies to the defense of the Kanak indigenous people in the French overseas territory of New Caledonia, and accuses France of a legacy of “crimes against humanity” in its colonial holdings. This appears to be blatant retaliation for French support of Armenia in the conflict between the two Caucasus nations. The repression of the Kanak uprising in their colonized homeland and the cleansing of the Armenians from their usurped ancestral lands both demand our protest—but the propaganda game makes everything more complicated. Yet another example of how a global divide-and-rule racket is the essence of the state system. Bill Weinberg discusses in Episode 227 of the CounterVortex podcast.

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast via Patreon—or $2 for our special offer, or $5 to become a Major Rant Enabler. We now have 63 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 64!

Flag image via Wikipedia

Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry strongly rejected the accusations and denied any ties with protest leaders. The statement further accused France of a long history of “crimes against humanity” and the “brutal murder of millions of innocent people” in its colonial holdings.

The Baku Initiative Group, a political enterprise started by Azerbaijan that aims to support anti-colonialist movements, issued a statement May 16 condemning France’s new amendment to the electoral structure in New Caledonia, which sparked the current unrest. The amendment would give the right to vote to residents who have been living for at least 10 years in the country, including French nationals, in the provincial ballots.

The protests started on May 13, after approval of the constitutional amendment by the French National Assembly. France has imposed a curfew and a ban on public gatherings in New Caledonia, and declared a state of emergency May 16.

From Jurist, May 18. Used with permission.

Photo: New Caledonia protesters fly flag of Azerbaijan alongside that of the independence movement. Credit: @BabakTaghvaee1