Original image author Chris Potter, http://www.stockmonkeys.com, image modified

The Court Ruling which could Outlaw Climate Skepticism

Essay by Eric Worrall

Vanuatu has urged Australia to join its push to have the United Nations International Court of Justice rule that states are “obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities” which lead to more CO2 emissions.

Vanuatu calls on Australia to back its UN bid to recognise climate change harm

Pacific islands urge new Labor government to support push for international court of justice to issue climate advisory opinion

Kate Lyons
Mon 20 Jun 2022 06.00 AEST

Australia’s new Labor government has been called on to prove its commitment to climate action and support for Pacific countries by backing a campaign led by Vanuatu to see international law changed to recognise climate change harm.

In a letter to the prime minister sent by leading Pacific and Australian NGOs, shared exclusively with Guardian Australia, the groups urged Anthony Albanese to support Vanuatu’s campaign for the international court of justice to issue an advisory opinion on the question of climate change.

“These demands present a great opportunity to your government to demonstrate its willingness to listen to Pacific island voices and to prove that you are prepared to act on the existential threat of the climate crisis in a manner that offers hope to future generations of Australians and Pacific Islanders,” said the letter, which was sent on behalf of groups including 350 Pacific, Amnesty International Australia, Oxfam Pacific and the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/20/vanuatu-calls-on-australia-to-back-its-un-bid-to-recognise-climate-change-harm

Why am I concerned by the push for the United Nations to recognise climate harm under the no harm rule? The wording of the law.

“[a] State is thus obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its territory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State.”

The “No harm” rule was originally developed in the wake of the Trail Smelter Case, a Consolidated Mining smelter in Canada whose toxic sulfur fumes were being blown into the United States.

If the ICJ recognises climate change under their no harm rule, then nation states will be obligated to “use all the means at its disposal” to prevent activities which lead to more CO2 emissions.

Could this “use all means” principle extend to silencing skeptics?

I want to make it clear at this point, I’m not a lawyer. So my interpretation could be wrong.

My limited understanding, for US skeptics at least, the first amendment provides some protection. But there are limits. US citizens aren’t allowed to make public speech which advocates unlawful violence against other citizens. People can be sued or criminally prosecuted for the harm their public speech causes, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, or for libel, telling lies in public which harm the reputation and earnings of their victim.

My concern is, if climate change is recognised under the no harm principle, then telling people there is no problem, when the ICJ has recognised there is a problem, could be interpreted as spreading falsehoods to deliberately put people in harms way. Just as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre puts people in harms way if there is no fire, so telling people there is no fire when the court has recognised the fire is real, could equally be interpreted as placing people in harms way.

Obviously the UN has no direct authority, for now, over the lives of citizens. But would someone like President Biden defend the rights of a US citizen against a UN International Arrest Warrant, issued by a party which claimed a WUWT article caused international harm, by encouraging the burning of more coal? Would deep green Prime Ministers like Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau or Anthony Albanese (Australia) stand up for the rights of a climate skeptic?

In the USA, there is a strong push to censor climate skepticism. In April this year, President Obama claimed the first amendment does not apply to the online censorship of climate skeptics. In Australia, doctors lost the freedom to criticise government policy, after some doctors expressed alarm at Covid vaccine side effects – a particularly vicious attack on freedom, given that Chinese suppression of doctors and medical free speech was what led to the original Covid outbreak escaping from Wuhan.

For now we are free to speak, thanks to laws enacted by people who mostly lived long ago who valued freedom, who were much wiser than today’s politicians. But that freedom is under attack. At any moment a new interpretation of the law, or failure to respect human rights, could crush our freedom to criticise climate policy insanity, or other government policies.

Those who would crush dissent are continuously looking for a loophole, a way to silence opponents, which is applicable within existing legal frameworks of laws which are meant to protect our freedoms – as Obama’s April speech in my opinion demonstrated. Legal recognition of climate harm is a potential route to regulation and suppression of climate speech. An abuse of the ICJ No Harm Rule could be just what they are looking for.

4.9 26 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 19, 2022 6:05 pm

At the end of the day, guns rule.

Steve Case
June 19, 2022 6:05 pm

George Orwell invented the “Thought Police” He was way ahead of his time.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 19, 2022 9:22 pm

Technically, the communists invented the thought police, Orwell just publicized it.

Reply to  PCman999
June 19, 2022 10:33 pm

A mind reader.

June 19, 2022 6:16 pm

“The Court Ruling which could Outlaw Climate Skepticism”

Wow! When Eric and the Guardian are pulling together, you really do get a massive beat-up.

There is of course no Court ruling. There isn’t even a case. There is no text of a resolution from Vanuatu. Instead, what is linked as “The wording of the law.” is a doc file from a “Legal Response Initiative “, with only this offerrng on authorship:

“This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. However, the views expressed and information contained in it are not necessarily those of or endorsed by DFID, which can accept no responsibility for such views or information or for any reliance placed on them.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 6:20 pm

Looking into the Guardian links, it says where the doc comes from:

“During their final year at law school, Solomon Yeo and his classmates set their minds to saving the world.

The legal students, who were studying at the University of South Pacific in Vanuatu, all hailed from Pacific island countries that are among the most vulnerable in the world to the climate crisis.

The idea the students came up with was to change international law by getting the world’s highest court – the international court of justice (ICJ) – to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis.”

So we’re supposed to get excited about a doc dreamed up by a few law students?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 6:52 pm

Ever heard of “give them an inch and they will take a mile”?
The reason many of us are so fervent in rejecting even small infringements on rights is because those infringements never go away. Once even small seemingly insignificant infringements become acceptable, there is no end to pushing for more and more control.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 19, 2022 10:31 pm

It’s called the “thin end of the wedge” – always to be guarded against!

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 20, 2022 1:35 pm

case in point– smoking
no matter how anyone feels about the issue the same tatics were used. eg,
they started with smoking areas/sections, then they banned indoor smoking & made everyone go outside, then when everyone goes outside they then say you can’t stand by the doorway, you have to go stand 15 yards down the line, then some places decided to get rid of the ash cans & people thru butts on the ground & then smoking was banned on the property. re: workplaces, the mgt bitched constantly that people were leaving their work area to go outside. The whole idea behind the charade was to ban smoking, but they worked up to it by every so often they would change the rules & apply more restrictions. By & by they managed to outlaw smoking & to my knowledge there are no public buildings that allow it & some workplaces it is taboo on the property.
Right now they are doing the same thing with the 2nd admendment. They keep chipping away at it a little at a time and eventually there won’t be much left of it either… so give them an inch and they’ll take a mile… 100% agree

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 7:13 pm

No Jewish German shopkeeper got excited about a bunch of unemployed cranks raving and ranting in a Munich biergarten.

Rather big mistake, there.

Your bunch should have been shut down fifty years ago.

Reply to  writing observer
June 19, 2022 8:46 pm

So are you going to monitor every biergarten?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 1:49 am

Nah you gotta be on the lookout for those power crazy socialists everywhere Nick-
Seven climate activists charged after raid (msn.com)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:24 am

The ones that need monitoring are the ones that tell us to ignore the unemployed cranks raving and ranting in a Munich biergarten; the ones that tell us to ignore the insignificant students that are rallying for international court of justice (ICJ) to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis.

The ones that look for any small typo or mistake, so they can say … “just ignore, it is not importan, move along”.

The ones like you.

Reply to  DonM
June 20, 2022 1:42 pm

The ones like you.”
I am not a biergarten. But I do not think you will find biergarten’s where people conspire to try to bring climate proposals to the ICJ.

Interested Observer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 7:55 pm

So, you are saying there is no campaign by Pacific island countries to have international law changed in order for them to sue for climate damages caused by rising CO2?

One would hope that if this scam scheme is allowed to go ahead, Pacific islands will sue the CO2 emitters in the order of largest emitters first. It would be interesting to see how their cases against China and India fare.

As an Australian, I would think we wouldn’t have to worry. The failure of the cases against all the countries above us on the list would have well and truly set the precedent by the time they got to us (if they ever did).

However, I’m sure the law would only apply to countries stupid enough to sign on to the agreement. Given that Australia has just elected a very stupid government, we will no doubt jump at the chance to signal our virtue and demonstrate that we lead the world when it comes to stupid ideas that will utterly wreck our country.

Australia should always take the stance that, when it comes to climate, we will only act if China does and only in the same proportion as our relative contribution to the “problem” when compared to China.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any politicians who actually put Australia’s interests ahead of their own.

Reply to  Interested Observer
June 19, 2022 8:45 pm

So, you are saying there is no campaign by Pacific island countries to have international law changed in order for them to sue for climate damages caused by rising CO2?”

I don’t know. But I am of sceptical disposition, and I would ask rather, what evidence is there that there is such a campaign? This post and its sources do not provide it.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 10:11 pm

Does your scepticism extend to stating in public, like here, that the Vanuatu claim of climate emergency needing money from other people, has no basis in measurement and mathematics?
Would you agree that Vanuatu is involved in a scam and that concepts and terminology used in a scam can be validly countered in similar scam talk?
Do you agree that overall, tide gauge measurements to date fail to show significant acceleration of the long term trend in recent years? Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 19, 2022 10:51 pm

Lots of airy words here. What is Vanuatu actually done? All the link seems to say is that some law students had a bright idea, and got sympathetic words from a range of local politicians, and maybe a paper in a law conference. And a run in the Guardian from a sympathetic reporter.

I don’t comment much on tide gauge matters.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 11:47 pm

“Lots of airy words here”

From Nick !

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 2:23 am

Oh Nick,
It is a shame that you do not comment on tide gauge matters, because the arguments now have a lot of mathematical content and maths is your professional emphasis. Any reason for your reluctance?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 5:58 am

some law students had a bright idea, and got sympathetic words from a range of local politicians, and maybe a paper in a law conference.

And that is how the push for a law often begins. They don’t appear out of nowhere!
But you know this, don’t you Nick. You’re just trying to get your censorious little Greens of the hook (and making a pretty poor attempt at it, I have to say)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:50 am

Not only is Nick’s skepticism selective, so apparently is his vision.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 12:32 am

Its a shame your self proclaimed sceptical disposition doesn’t extend to the claims made by the alarmists.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 3:49 am

Not sure anyone here gives a toss what you think either … probably stick to facts.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:12 am

It’s happening – see my post above and check it out on the internet. The information is available online.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:49 am

Nick’s skepticism is quite selective.
He’s only skeptical when it suits his over all objectives.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 1:43 pm

that’s the trouble, you don’t know… period

Reply to  Interested Observer
June 19, 2022 8:53 pm

It is is emissions per capita don’cha know? 😉

Reply to  Interested Observer
June 20, 2022 2:27 am

always said the climate cons would bite us when the poor(or not so poor) could figure a way to blame n claim more money by it.
those hotshot kidlawyers were probably funded BY Aus to get their education and uni etc. their families somewhat involved in nasty Co2 emitting tourism enterprises.
so, lets see em STOP the planes boats and the overuse of water imported foods etc for that!
personally Id pull handouts we give and they could go handle their own issues however they want..which would probably mean theyd sell emselves to china, in a heartbeat

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 5:21 am

What I ‘d like to ask is: What is / are , the technicalities of MAN_Made Laws ? Why should / does anyone adhere to them ? We have the Science Laws of Motion, thermodynamics etc etc …. whether you agree or not with them, it doesn’t matter until you go try fly off a cliff – you’ll find out soon eneough and suffer the consequences, butall others, Live and let live. Not so with all t hese Dough / Duff-ball would be Lawyers et al. ..

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:10 am

Vanuatu have retained the services of Blue Ocean Law firm (since at least 2021) to pursue this avenue with the ICJ. The law team and advocates looking at this include Julian Aguon of Blue Ocean Law, Margarethe Werewinke-Singh leader of the ICJ team of the Hague and at least 4 Law Professors from international Universities, all considered to be experts in international environment law. This is not some hypothetical situation dreamed up by students – this has progressed to the stage of serious legal consideration at the ICJ – Australia and other countries pushing for an advisory opinion from the ICJ will only add international political weight to the process already underway.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 20, 2022 1:38 pm

Margarethe Werewinke-Singh is not “leader of the ICJ team of the Hague”. She is a law lecturer at the University of Leiden. A proposal does not come to the ICJ without first being referred by majority vote at the UN General Assembly. And no vote has yet been proposed.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 1:51 pm

Apologies, the original site I used was in error. Margarethe Wewerinke-Singh, assistant Professor at the Grotius centre for International Law is also part of the legal team assembled by Vanuatu. Whichever way you choose to look at it, this has gone way beyond a few students.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:48 am

It is amazing how such clap trap coming from students of the law.

The essential of any law or legislation is that it comes to be and then applicable as a means to regulate a given human-social condition, where the condition very clearly established in evidence and facts, not assumptions or hypothesis.

For example, the drink driving is dealt by specif law(s), because the condition very much established as dangerous, in real facts and evidence, indisputably.

The same can not be said for mask mandates and lockdowns or vaccine mandates… or human CO2 climate change, for that matter.

And yes, history clearly shows, that in communist or/and fascists states, the veracity of evidence and fact, especially when it comes to Law, is firmly indisputably established by the will and the might and the decree of the politburo and/or the ‘Divine Leader’… always for the best of the people… regardless and independent of anything else,
like for example the actual reality of the matter.


Richard Page
Reply to  whiten
June 20, 2022 1:59 pm

In 2019 Pacific Youth Groups, among them 27 law students, were attempting to bring this matter to the ICJ. Roll on 2 years and, in 2021/22, that same issue is being pushed by a professional legal firm, 4 international law professors, backed by nations such as Vanuatu. This cannot be brushed aside simply as ‘claptrap from students of law’ it’s gathered a lot of momentum and money since then.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 8:57 pm

As usual, Nick beclowns himself by refuting a claim that nobody has made.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 6:37 pm

You really don’t like it when the leftist totalitarian agenda is exposed so blatantly, do you nick !

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 6:54 pm

There is a campaign by Vanuatu which Australia is being invited to join to get a ruling from the ICJ to amend international law to recognise climate change harm.
The absence of a case, a ruling or a text ( as yet) doesn’t assuage my concerns.
This is part of the interminable “lawfare” by alarmists who are self avowed destroyers of fossil fuel based societies.
In this case it is “ begging bowl lawfare”.
It is no different in kind to Juliana v. USA or Sharma v. Minister for Energy ( Australia).
It is why declarations of a climate emergency ( UK, New Zealand, Victoria etc ) are so inimical.
How do you resist “ Loss and Damage” claims from 165 developing countries once the ICJ or some national Court admits there is an “existential crisis” from the “climate emergency”?
Do you argue that Britain didn’t champion the Industrial Revolution although Boris has apologised for that?

william Johnston
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 7:00 pm

Was it Vanuatu that a while back was worried about climate change and rising sea levels and their effect on the island’s future.

Reply to  william Johnston
June 19, 2022 7:15 pm

They are the Pacific Island “poster child” for raising money.

Reply to  william Johnston
June 19, 2022 8:56 pm

As I recall that time it was soon after a cyclone and storm surge onto the island land pushing palm trees over and depositing rubbish across beaches.

A leader stood with television news people pointing to the damage and attributing it to climate change.

John in Oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2022 7:05 pm

The first action these students could take is to encourage Vanuatu to stop using fossil fuels.

84% of their electricity is from fossil fuels – https://www.worldometers.info/electricity/vanuatu-electricity/

Reply to  John in Oz
June 19, 2022 8:57 pm

But their friends in the CCP are using much more, so not a problem.


Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 12:53 am

I haven’t followed up the source of the document, but assuming Nick has correctly done so, he is right on its lack of significance. Its is no more than a piece of about the same legislative significance as the piece on ‘The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act’ (H.R. 4266 ), published here a few days ago, ie none.
Eric has perhaps over reacted to it. But his reaction of concern about limitations on the expression of climate skepticism is based on something substantive, even if this particular document isn’t a basis for it.

It is a matter of fact that there have been serious efforts by alarmists to prevent publication of material casting doubt on the existence of any climate emergency, and this has become a matter of policy at influential media organizations. You will never find any climate-skeptical pieces at the Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post or BBC. Or indeed at titles owned by some other large media companies.

We saw in the Climategate material that there were some academic scientists who were prepared to abuse the peer-review process to prevent publication of skeptical papers. The harassment directed at people like Judith Curry and Roger Pielke is another instance of attempted coercion in academic life.

We saw a while back the coordination of a style guide, which the
Guardian implemented, in which there is no longer global warming, but
global heating, and so forth. It tries to bake the assumptions about the supposed climate crisis, emergency or whatever into the language which is to be used to report on weather and climate,

In addition, we increasingly hear people in the UK, the US, Canada or Australia talking about stopping something called disinformation, and on climate matters they really mean legal measures directed at preventing publication of climate skeptical opinion. Or the encouragement of media outlets to do it, with or without legal necessity.

The piece Eric is referring to is in itself a trivial and insignificant matter. But in the context of other initiatives along the same lines, it is a tiny straw in a wind which is carrying much more substantial material of the same sort along. One should always check and try to be balanced. But some over reaction to this kind of thing is understandable.

We are, in climate matters, at about the same level as we are with gender. That is, a point at which, in some jurisdictions in the Anglosphere, wearing a T-shirt with the legend ‘Woman = Adult Human Female” can be described as ‘phobic’, hate speech, and can lead to a visit from the police.

In the case of climate, simply doubting that an industrial economy can be economically powered by wind and solar without significant amounts of storage is referred to by the alarmists as ‘denialism’.

Yes, in these times people do get very sensitive…

Reply to  michel
June 20, 2022 2:30 am

censorship is at grassroots in media in Aus
local papers will NOT run skeptical readers writes or anything questioning warming scam in any way at all

Reply to  michel
June 20, 2022 3:12 pm

Its is no more than a piece of about the same legislative significance as the piece on ‘The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act’ (H.R. 4266 ), published here a few days ago, ie none.

Are you familiar with the phrase “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.”?

Too late, we found out what was in that bill. The time to stop it was in November 2007 – not allow the fascists to take over the Congress and the White House.

The time to stop the Climate fascists was at least fifty years ago – but we need to do what we can now, not just give up.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 3:31 am


People are going to starve this year and people are going to die because they don’t have the power or fuel they need. Not because of global warming, but because of the crippling of the Wests economies for the sake of a non existent problem. You continue to advocate for these policies even though you know that there is no catastrophe coming. Its look in the mirror time Nick.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:45 am

Obviously, everyone should ignore this issue until after the ruling is issued.
Prior to that point it’s just a hypothetical.
Just like all the scary predictions from the global warming alarmists are just hypotheticals.

Tom Halla
June 19, 2022 6:17 pm

The issue in the US is not direct governmental action, but media and social media sucking up to the Democrats.
The legacy broadcast media are mostly Democrat partisans, so much so that Fox looks conservative by contrast. Alphabet, Meta, and Twitter are all devout Leftists, so much so that a takeover of Twitter by a moderate, Elon Musk, is seen as a threat.
The really perverse part of the legal case is that Vanuatu is growing, not shrinking. So the theme from State of Fear was well chosen, and the issue is True Believer politicians, not a real emergency.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 6:54 pm

89% of Pacific island coasts have been stable to GROWING in size since the 1980s. Only 4 of 334 (1.2%) islands larger than 5 hectare have decreased in size. Zero islands larger than 10 hectare have decreased in size. The Maldives added 37.5 km² of coastal land area 2001-2017.
Kenneth Richard

I’d say Vanuatu is following this lawyer’s advice and pounding the table.
“Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares with his students a strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”

Reply to  .KcTaz
June 20, 2022 3:39 pm

Discover magazine published an article last month falsely claiming that Vanuatu was declining in area. I wrote to them pointing out their error with a published reference establishing that across all Vanuatu islands they have grown 2.9% in the last 40 years. They responded that their workload is too high to address my concern. It’s the second time I’ve written them in the last 3 months to point out a false claim regarding climate change (the first was regarding lightning frequency – they ran an article about an area in the Arctic where severe thunderstorms are increasing yet ignored the fact that they’re decreasing almost everywhere else world-wide.)

I’m not renewing, it’s bad enough that they are lying but when they know they’re lying and don’t stop, the only thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 7:44 pm

I was working on a computer system for Air Nui Ginea in Port Moresby when PNG got self-rule government in 1975.
Mayhem ensued.
Not safe to leave the airport hotel.
Hasn’t changed much since.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 10:22 pm

Eric, I’ll see your Port-au-Prince, Mogadishu, Freetown, and Monrovia,
and raise you ADELAIDE.
(where the natives still enforce mullets and drink West End I’m told)

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Mr.
June 20, 2022 2:31 am

I will raise you all and double the money for Canberra, Australia (and its counterparts in other countries like Washington DC that voted Dem 95% in the 2020 US election and Ottawa Canada, another place full of cardboard copies of real life in the hard world. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2022 10:04 am

Here in the US, you can include any city that has been run by Democrats for more than 40 years.

Reply to  Mr.
June 20, 2022 2:33 am

mullets n westend arent as big a problem as the even darker hued importees in gangs mate.
same as in Melbourne

Reply to  Mr.
June 19, 2022 9:01 pm

I have not been involved for many years but during the 1980s and 1990s PNG citizens who needed to drive vehicles outside of suburban areas had high tensile wire or expanded steel screens fitted over the windows for protection.

And were advised to never stop if involved in an accident, particularly hitting a pedestrian, drive away and report to police.

Reply to  Dennis
June 19, 2022 10:14 pm

Yeah, their first reaction to every incident or accident is –

Reply to  Dennis
June 19, 2022 10:34 pm

can vouch for that 1983 or thereabouts

Roy France
June 19, 2022 6:26 pm

I consider that climate alarmism is the equivalent of shouting “Fire!!” in a crowded theatre where no fire is PROVEN to exist (and after making sure the exits are locked)…

Walter Sobchak
June 19, 2022 6:54 pm

“I want to make it clear at this point, I’m not a lawyer. So my interpretation could be wrong.”

I am a lawyer. I would spend no time worrying about the toothless and inefectual ICJ, which has only has jurisdiction only over states party to the UN Charter (not individuals) and then only to the extent they voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction.

Philippines sued China in the ICJ over China’s actions in the South China Sea. Philippines won and China did not treat the judgement as a speed bump on its campaign to build fortifications in international waters.

Your real problem is Amazon, Google, and Facebook which control so much of the traffic over the internet.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 7:55 pm

Maybe exposing the AGW conjecture to expert cross examination in an established court jurisdiction could be a positive development?

After all, look at the evasive footwork Mikey Mann has had to put in to avoid courtrooms in Washington DC with his Mark Steyn case, and also in Vancouver BC in his case with Prof Tim Ball, which he lost because he was afraid that his “science” was going be examined in open court.

Reply to  Mr.
June 19, 2022 9:41 pm

No it will be like the Alex Jones so called “trial”: you are wrong not trial needed let’s evaluate the prejudice.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 8:25 pm

“And plaintiffs in the USA would certainly attempt to introduce relevant ICJ precedent into federal or state legal cases.”

Plaintiffs can put anything they want to in their pleadings, but I don’t think American Courts care very much about what foreigners think.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 19, 2022 9:03 pm

It depends on the judge. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was famous for quoting foreign constitutions in her dissents. There are hundreds of leftist judges that look to her for their inspiration. Personally I would have taken the citing of foreign law in an opinion as grounds to find her “not in good conduct” which is the constitutional language for removal of a judge through impeachment. Of course it has never been done except in cases of bribery, but the constitutional standard for a judge’s impeachment is FAR lower than the “High crimes and misdemeanors” standard for impeachment of a president.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 19, 2022 9:04 pm

That used to be the case, I believe it was GInsburg who wanted to give foreign courts greater weight in Supreme Court decisions.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 19, 2022 9:44 pm

Well that’s clear in the Texaco then Chevron vs. Ecuador case: the US doesn’t consider jugements in other countries sacrosaint.
(What about Canada? Do they?)

Reply to  niceguy
June 19, 2022 10:28 pm

I believe in Canada it’s –
“what does Klaus Schwab say we must do”?

Reply to  Mr.
June 19, 2022 10:35 pm

Be happy and leave money problems to experts like him.

June 19, 2022 6:59 pm

The puppetmasters have spoken. All leaders of the world will obey. The “climate change” $cheme will be paid by the masses, leaving enough “clean” air for industry and the uber rich globalist stakeholders to spew their own toxic exhaust. After all, their activities are justified, as a privileged class who believes their quality of life is more important than our comfort and survival. And, there are too many “useless eaters” in the world today. Next, more on depopulation…

Izaak Walton
June 19, 2022 7:12 pm

What exactly is a “UN international arrest warrant”? No such thing exists and so the question of what President Biden or indeed anyone would do in response to such a thing is moot.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 19, 2022 8:28 pm

The ICC and the ICJ are different institutions. The US is not a party to the ICC treaty — deliberately.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 19, 2022 9:06 pm

True, but I believe Eric is an Aussie, and they are signatories to both.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 20, 2022 6:16 pm

You are worried about the wrong demon. The real enemy is Silicon Valley.

John the Econ
June 19, 2022 7:20 pm

Once the first and second Amendments are no longer upheld, the rest won’t matter for long.

Reply to  John the Econ
June 19, 2022 9:50 pm

IMHO there is a very non Newtonian effect in US politics: the push for many guns and speech restrictions esp. combined with “COVID crisis” (PCR-testdemic) creates more resistance to restrictions.
I don’t feel that in other countries…

Reply to  niceguy
June 20, 2022 10:12 am

There has been a 600% increase in requests for concealed carry permits in the city of Philadelphia.
Women and minorities show the largest increases.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 3:17 pm

67% increase in justifiable (self-defense) homicides, too. Of course, that figure will tend to go down as the law abiding become less attractive to thuggery.

Geoff Sherrington
June 19, 2022 7:23 pm

re your mention of the Trail Smelter Case, you call the gas SO2 ‘toxic’.
in 1974 my family with 2 small children lived for a year about 250 metres from the smelter chimney at the Mount Morgan gold/copper mine. The fumes of high SO2 got really fruity, eye-watering when the wind blew our way.
Uncomfortable, yes. But toxic, no. No health problems arose with us or the many other folk at Mt Morgan.
For me, toxic is an alarmist word, often misused, but popular in the present era when exaggeration and alarmism rule. Incredible. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2022 3:34 am

noxious would be the better word

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2022 3:29 pm

SO2 + O2 + 2H2O -> 2SO4. Sulfuric acid. Sorry, but that IS toxic.

I’ll give you your year next to a smelter – and raise you nineteen years more. I spent the first twenty years, one third, of my life next to the Inspiration copper mine and smelter.

Peta of Newark
June 19, 2022 7:38 pm

Sort of blah blah blah

What Climate Change has done is create a world populated by ‘victims’ and thanks to the (left leaning) MSM – all those real and imagined ‘victims’ know all about it.

And as everyone knows thanks to the epic and burgeoning population of lawyers:
Victims deserve compensation

Vast numbers of the world’s people, (just about everybody in The West) now imagines everybody else is hurting them and that they deserve compensation.

And not just any old compensation, only $$$$ will do.

In the case of the utterly unfalsifiable and junk science of climate, every single one of them has an unassailable case.

Only significant question is whether The Fed can print money fast enough and what happens when they do.

What will happen when everybody returns to the womb?

edit to quickly PS a random thought..
Are the True Believers of climate not themselves Sceptics.

Are they not themselves sceptical of all the people they accuse of Skepticism – thus hoisted by their petards?

June 19, 2022 8:01 pm

Ok then Vanuatu, Australia will pay to cover all your islands with solar panels, wind turbines and lithium batteries. There fixed it for you. Shame about the scenic views.

June 19, 2022 8:04 pm

Nobody cares about this court. States are sovereign and do not ordinarily allow non government courts to make laws for them.

June 19, 2022 8:24 pm

The incompetence of present climate modellers will be clear to everyone some time in the distant future. I probably will not see that day. The nasty can of worms that has been opened is causing tremendous waste of resources. What harm has come to Vanuatu?

The simple fact is that open ocean surface temperature cannot be sustained above 30C. It is not a physical possibility with the present atmospheric mass. The attached chart shows how divergent modelled output is from measured for the Nino34 region, which has a slight negative trend over the satellite era.

Who would plan an outdoor event 1 year ahead based on a weather prediction? Those same models are being used to forecast the weather 100+ years ahead and we are asked to accept what they produce as fact – mind boggling is understating the stupidity.

Screen Shot 2022-06-20 at 1.16.42 pm.png
June 19, 2022 8:54 pm

Another Pacific Island nation, friends of Communist China and aid monies recipients from any source willing to pay them.

It’s alright for the CCP to continue to build coal fired power stations and recently to increase mining of coal in China, but according to our “friends” Australia must do more to combat climate hoax.

June 19, 2022 9:04 pm

The opening statement here was about “more CO2 emissions”. It that is what was actually proposed, rather than what was discussed in the following article in a “journalistic” attempt to distort, then stepping up coal or gas burning to deal with extreme circumstances would be the more likely activity to be prosecuted rather than someone expressing skepticism about alarmists pronouncements.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 20, 2022 12:58 am

Fossil fuel use is being expanded in quite a few places, in direct contradiction to announced policies.Whether or not that makes any difference to anything, it is most definitely and directly “more CO2 emissions”. No amount of discussion or writing about the issues produces CO2 even though such communications sometimes point out that official policies themselves lead to”more CO2 emissions”. than would otherwise be produced by the practices they are replacing.

Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 3:32 pm

Try selling that to a judge in a court trying you for “conspiracy.”

Geoff Sherrington
June 19, 2022 10:14 pm

As the game unfolds like a chess opening, can the next move be for Vanuatu to threaten that if they do not get more money from Australia then they will sign up for defence agreements with China?
Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 19, 2022 10:42 pm

WW2 Battle of Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands


Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2022 12:59 am

Or maybe they will hold heir breath underwater until someone meets their demands.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 2:40 am


The situation with ethnic groups is rapidly getting worse. In Australia, a big push is on to give aborigines a separate mention and separate powers in the Constitution. Here is a description, not widely known, of the origins of some of the actors.
Bogus Identity and Constitutional Change – Quadrant Online

This terrifying scenario of Constitutional recognition illustrates how much ordinary folk have to be aware of and clamp down on illegal groups and people who currently have too much to sprout. It is another reason why early awareness of the Vanuatu situation is prudent. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 21, 2022 2:51 am

It seems to me that the evidence says there is zero validity to any of the Vanuatu politicians’ claims so no reasonable person should pay the least attention to them. I have no doubt the islands have financial problems but not caused by the rest of the world in general or by climate in any sense other than that their climate is so pleasant that it attracts far too many people for the local resources.

For instance, such islands only natural source of fresh water is that sequestered from rain. This has obviously been enough to support a limited population for an extended time but quite possibly not a tourist economy, at least not for long. Waste disposal also has to be difficult unless they wish to despoil the waters in which they sit. Malthusian claims, vis a vis food, might be justified within such limited resources. They might have dug themselves into an unmanageable financial hole building airports and expensive tourist accommodations, etc. etc.

June 19, 2022 10:27 pm

Classic shake down seen this sort of carry on in other third world countries
It will all go away if we pay them lots and lots of money after all the 100 trillion they where promised has all evaporated

Mike Lowe
June 19, 2022 10:28 pm

More hands out for filthy lucre, with no justification whatsoever. Prove there is some proof of damage to the environment – or anything else.

June 19, 2022 11:51 pm

“obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities”
Would those activities include tourism?

Reply to  M D
June 20, 2022 5:35 am

Yep: lock down Vanuatu’s airports! It’s for their own good, of course.

Peter K
June 19, 2022 11:59 pm

Until the so called “97%” come up with empirical evidence that climate change, global warming etc. is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, I will put the believers in the religious category. So the push is for sceptics to be punished for not believing in their religion.

June 20, 2022 12:57 am

“use all the means at its disposal”
“nuke your neighbors”

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 20, 2022 1:43 am

In the meantime Vanuatu has been upgrading its airports.


To the delude climate change believer that must fall under ‘self harm’.

Richard Page
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 21, 2022 5:02 am

They do kind of, don’t they? Finally someone in the hurricane zone is planning to build the correct building’s to withstand at least a CAT 3. These are what should have been built across islands in the Pacific before greed and graft produced a disaster waiting to happen.

Michael in Dublin
June 20, 2022 3:06 am

Vanuatu which has barely over 300 000 people wants to tell the rest of the world what to do.

Ben Vorlich
June 20, 2022 3:19 am

The laws about freedom were enacted by people who had escaped from, or were refugees fleeing, tyranny and oppression. As a result they valued freedom.

After two or three centuries the majority don’t realise what they have and what it’s like not to have freedom. They don’t realise that freedom is given away one small step at a time until there’s none left.

Giordano Milton
June 20, 2022 4:04 am

Summary: The globalist anarcho-tyranny wants to use the UN court as its reinstated Inquisition to silence anyone who dares challenge whatever lie they choose to push.

Mason Crawford
June 20, 2022 4:11 am

Well, to start off with the world’s countries could stop all fossil fueled transport to these little corrupt 3rd world cesspool islands. Therefore no planes, no ships, and no tourists or outside supplies. I’m sure the citizens of Vanuatu would be much better off!

June 20, 2022 4:27 am

Vanuatu is a two bit country, ignore it. NZ I think has some influence over it so Vanuatu may be acting as a proxy.

June 20, 2022 5:17 am

Well, I mean to say…. if the Kings will listen to Greetin Bert and still run around ‘in their new clothes’ then it’s time the Kings were treated for that trace element deficiency of Pb deficiency.. It is a one way trip, just as they are taking us all …. and I don’t want to jump in the Fire or Swollen River to be ‘bathed’ – I couldn’t call it being baptised.

June 20, 2022 5:33 am

Talk about bear traps: any country that signs up is effectively giving a blank cheque to any less developed country that has its eye on the open till!

June 20, 2022 5:33 am

Is Vanuatu addicted to climate redistribution cash at this point in the great game?

Dikke Leo
June 20, 2022 8:20 am

Didn’t Michael Crichton write a book about this, State of Fear?

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Dikke Leo
June 20, 2022 9:41 am

Yes he did. We are living in Wonderland where everything is upside down. 500 million guns in the US is our only salvation and the only reason why the ruling elite haven’t been successful. I fear civil war is coming.

John Larson
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
June 20, 2022 2:06 pm

If “500 million guns in the US is our only salvation and the only reason why the ruling elite haven’t been successful”, why call what is being attempted a “civil war”?

No doubt our wanna-be ruling elites prefer that more legitimizing way of putting it, but it’s an attempted overthrow of the Constitutional Republic it seems to me. And that’s why we don’t speak of the Russian/Chinese/Cuban/etc., “civil wars”, despite fighting between countrymen while those overthrows were unfolding.

Lawrie Ayres
June 22, 2022 12:19 am

They are getting more desperate as the wheels fall off the climate scam. The new Australian government are even bigger ignoramuses when it comes to climate than the woke last government. Only a complete failure of the energy grid will drive home the fact that renewables are hopeless at keeping the lights on and industry running. Minister Bowen is a complete fool and has failed miserably in the past ; first with immigration (allowed 50000 boat people in) and as a treasury shadow. He will fail even more spectacularly with energy but we will suffer the consequences.

Ty ty
June 22, 2022 12:51 am

Co2 Greened an area x2 the size of the continental united states; why does Vanuatu want to be one of the only people allowed to green the earth?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights