Berlin, FRG (Weltexpress). Yes, suddenly the German mainstream has discovered the International Court of Justice in The Hague. But only because the judges there have written an opinion that suits German politics. International law is only of interest when it suits.
The German media, led by the Tagesschau, are cheering the ‘landmark opinion’ that the International Court of Justice in The Hague has published on the ‘obligations of states in relation to climate change’. It is called ‘groundbreaking’ (Tagesschau), or ‘a clean environment is a human right’ (heute), or ‘failures in climate protection are contrary to international law’ (WAZ).
Sure, that fits in with the German line; after all, its own citizens are being comprehensively fleeced and impoverished on the grounds of ‘climate protection,’ so this comes in handy. However, as usual, the devil is in the details, and behind this lies a question that the ICJ has naturally not addressed at all – namely, whether such a restriction of state sovereignty, as can be inferred from this opinion, is compatible with democracy at all.
The legal opinion was prepared at the request of the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, but it is not legally binding. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has no executive power. However, in connection with the actions of Western countries in particular in recent decades, it is likely to have very unpleasant consequences.
The ICJ is a court that deals primarily with the implementation of international treaties. This means that even if it concludes that states are obliged to comply with rules to combat ‘man-made climate change,’ this conclusion falls into two parts: one that can apply to all (derived from the UN Charter) and another that is based on treaties to which the respective states have acceded, such as the Kyoto Agreement. In the latter case, the solution is relatively simple: in the event of a serious conflict with sovereignty and national interests, the state concerned can withdraw from the respective agreements.
The ICJ’s press release gives an idea of where such conflicts might lie, stating: “A failure by a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions – including through the production of fossil fuels, the consumption of fossil fuels, the granting of licences for the exploitation of fossil fuels or the granting of subsidies for fossil fuels – may constitute a violation of international law attributable to the State.”
One can already picture how Western sanctions enthusiasts will use this opportunity to prevent African countries from developing their fossil fuel reserves or to punish them for doing so, regardless of whether the future well-being of the respective populations depends on it or not. Such disputes have already arisen, for example with Namibia. After all, it may well be that the small Pacific island state of Vanuatu, which co-sponsored the report, is hoping for a financial injection because the habitability of its islands is at risk (even if this is ‘man-made’ is only certain for supporters of the IPCC, which apparently includes the ICJ, and sediment data indicate that sea levels have risen and fallen repeatedly throughout Earth’s history). Otherwise, the ruling may well state that concrete proof of causality is required before any claims can be made – but since when has the collective West cared about such details?
Vanuatu may well receive a crumb or two, if only to be able to present a test case of ‘climate victims’. And, of course, the Brussels bureaucracy will invoke the report to push ahead with the long-planned ‘climate tariffs,’ which are essentially protective tariffs against former colonies, cutting them off from access to the European market with a new justification. But ultimately, whether or not these malicious options that have been opened up will be realised will depend on entirely different issues – on the balance of power between the collective West and the BRICS countries, whose development concept does not in any way envisage perpetuating the poverty that the West has so consistently pursued over the last few decades.
The question of sovereignty, which is hidden in this report, will also be played out at this level. Ultimately, climate belief, with all its institutions, is a product of unipolar US dominance, and the end of this hegemony will at least significantly prune it back. What is currently being pursued in the EU as ‘climate protection’, such as wind power projects that divert ever larger portions of the income of the normal population into the pockets of ‘investors’ via higher electricity costs, or the ludicrous building regulations, will ultimately only worsen the economic conditions of the EU itself, because the material basis for imposing these rules on the rest of the world no longer exists. These rules can no longer be imposed on the rest of the world.
It is striking how loudly the ICJ is being praised for this opinion, while quite concrete instructions that are far more binding for a whole series of states are being completely ignored. For at least in Germany, there is a preference for keeping quiet about a genuine case before the ICJ – namely, the case against Israel for genocide in Gaza, and also the case against Germany for its participation in this genocide.
This case is not just about the ‘human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’, although the increasing number of birth defects among children born in Gaza already suggests that uranium-containing ammunition and other toxic substances are being used – no, it is about the right to life itself. About sheer existence. Not to starve, not to die of thirst, not to be torn to pieces by bombs or riddled with bullets. But whatever the ICJ finds in this context, it will not trigger loud cheers on the Tagesschau or other leading German media outlets, nor will German politicians feel bound by it in any way. Germany has just blocked a European resolution against Israel (which some on the internet commented on by pointing out that Germany also voted against sanctions against apartheid South Africa in 1986).
That’s how it is with the ‘international community,’ with international law, and ultimately with the ICJ. They are only relevant when they suit one’s own purposes. Otherwise, one remains silent and continues to do what one has always done, such as supplying weapons to Israel. After all, it is German submarines that are transporting Israeli nuclear missiles, while at the same time the German government welcomes Israel’s attack on Iran, even though the peaceful use of nuclear energy is guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, moreover, this energy is considered climate-friendly in most countries. Who needs logic in life?
However, the report that has now been published will be trotted out again and again as if it were an expression of papal infallibility, every time there is even the slightest resistance to climate madness, and every time it is necessary to teach a poor country that has become a little too rebellious a lesson, there will be some German NGO calling for sanctions from the German government or the EU. Because of the climate. And the children in Gaza continue to starve while a German chancellor shakes hands with Israeli genocidal maniac Benjamin Netanyahu.
