From what the evidence shows, Interestingly, MoneyWorld Court Climate Change Opinion Validates Trump’s Paris Agreement ConcernsByJon McGowan, Contributor.
Furthermore, In contrast, Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights. Moreover, I am an attorney who writes ESG policy, laws, and regulations.
Nevertheless, AuthorJul 26, 2025, 07:54pm EDTUS President Donald Trump holds letter to the UN stating the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
More during the inaugural parade inside Capital One Arena, in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2025.
Additionally, (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty Images On July 23, the International Court of Justice released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change.
The Court found that developed countries, the United States, must take action to reduce GHG emissions to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Nevertheless, Furthermore, Those countries could also be required to pay reparations to countries that are “adversely impacted” by the effects of climate change.
At the same time, The opinion, while non-binding, gives teeth to the Paris Agreement and reinforces many concerns expressed by President Trump.
This leads to the conclusion that Paris Agreement is an international treaty adopted in 2015 to address the impacts of climate change, given the current landscape.
However, Nevertheless, The agreement sets a goal of reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
However, On the other hand, To reach that goal, a series of policies were adopted to address how governments and es reduce and report GHG emissions (quite telling).
Nevertheless, It also focused on funding of both climate change initiatives and the economic impacts of climate change. In 2019, President Trump withdrew the U.
Nevertheless, On the other hand, From the treaty, only for President Joe Biden to rejoin in 2021. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the U, given the current landscape.
On the other hand, From the agreement for a second time (something worth watching). The justifications can be found in a June 2017 statement by Trump.
“There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well, considering recent developments. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.
Economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.
Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty… MORE FOR YOU “The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.
In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.
And exiting the agreement tects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.
Moreover, Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in. However, ” That legal liability has become a reality.
Conversely, In March 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change.
On the other hand, The opinion gives an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development.
Ing two years of ceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23.
The opinion started with the obligations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto tocol, and the Paris Agreement.
During the ceedings, a divide was formed between large, developed countries and countries. One particular legal debate related to the obligations states have under the Paris Agreement.
Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Agreement requires countries to “prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve (an important development).
At the same time, Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.
However, ” These NDCs outline actions taken by the the countries to reduce GHG emission (which is quite significant).
Throughout the Court’s ceedings, this cess was been referred to as cedural, meaning that countries are only required to go through the cess of creating the report.
Moreover, Notably, this argument was made by attorneys representing the Biden Administration.
In contrast, The debate arises over whether there is a substantive, or actual action, required to enact the goals of the NDC.
A substantive requirement creates a legal liability to act and could lead to legal consequences for failure to act.
To justify the substantive argument, advocates point to Article 4, paragraph 3 that states successive NDCs “will represent a gression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
” countries also argued that the goal of net zero GHG emissions by 2050, and the goal to limit global warming to 1. 5 C are aspirational and not legally binding (which is quite significant).
However, the Court disagreed, given current economic conditions. Additionally, The Court determined that NDCs, steps to reduce GHG emissions, and the 1.
5 C target are not aspirational, rather countries have a legal obligation to meet those goals. However, Further, the Court said failure to act could bring legal liability.
According to the Court, if developed countries fail to take action to mitigate the impacts of climate change, states that are “adversely impacted” by climate change can take legal action.
Moreover, However, If successful, high GHG emitting countries will have a “duty to make reparation.
However, ” Reparation can come in the form of restitution, “reconstructing damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity", or compensation.
While the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change was non-binding, it will be used as a strong legal argument in future cases, given the current landscape.
Expect a wave of litigation relating to climate change (something worth watching), given the current landscape.
It will not take long for countries to file complaints before the ICJ seeking damages from the United States, China, Australia, and the European Union, in this volatile climate.
Activists will also use the opinion in national courts to challenge both the actions of governments and of companies. However, Editorial StandardsRes & PermissionsLOADING PLAYER.