Essay by Eric Worrall
An international body which thinks it can dictate climate policy and free speech policy to the United States.
Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules
Costa Rica-based inter-American court of human rights says states have obligation to respond to climate change
Isabella Kaminski Fri 4 Jul 2025 07.53 AEST
There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled.
…
In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown. That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.
…
The IACHR’s founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the US and Canada.
…
The inter-American court of human rights is the second of four top courts to publish an advisory opinion on climate change.
The first court to publish its opinion, the international tribunal for the law of the sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/03/countries-must-protect-human-right-to-a-stable-climate-court-rules
Court judgement links:
Press release: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/comunicados_prensa.cfm?lang=en&n=2151
Consultative opinion page: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/OC-32-2025/index-eng.html
Consultative opinion (?) – Spanish, dated 29th May: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_esp.pdf
There may be a more recent document, please post in comments if you find it.
The 29th May consultative opinion I found contains lots of references to “desinformación”, including this apparent call for censorship of dissenting views;
529. Finalmente, teniendo en cuenta el papel determinante que desempeñan en esta
materia las empresas, los desarrolladores de tecnología digital, las plataformas
tecnológicas, las redes sociales y los medios de comunicación, la Corte enfatiza la
necesidad de que, conforme a lo señalado en el Pacto para el Futuro, los Estados
colaboren con dichos actores para fortalecer la alfabetización mediática e informativa.
Esta colaboración debe orientarse a que las personas usuarias adquieran habilidades
y conocimientos que les permitan interactuar de manera crítica, segura y consciente
con los contenidos digitales. En suma, este Tribunal subraya que el acceso a
información veraz y confiable en el contexto de la emergencia climática hace necesario
el compromiso conjunto de los Estados y los actores privados para prevenir y
contrarrestar la desinformación.
GOOGLE Translate:529. Finally, taking into account the determining role they play in this matter companies, digital technology developers, platforms technological technologies, social networks and the media, the Court emphasizes the need that, in accordance with what is indicated in the Pact for the Future, the States collaborate with these actors to strengthen media and information literacy. This collaboration should be aimed at ensuring that users acquire skills and knowledge that allows them to interact critically, safely and consciously with digital content. In short, this Court emphasizes that access to truthful and reliable information in the context of the climate emergency makes it necessary the joint commitment of States and private actors to prevent and counteract misinformation.
Read more: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_esp.pdf
The article references a previous agreement by an international body to start charging a carbon tax on all global shipping. The following is the WUWT article on the previous international tribunal for the law of the sea ruling;
I doubt this nonsense judgement will have any impact on the USA, at least under the current administration. The Trump administration responded in the lead up to the previous ITLOS tribunal judgement (see above) with a threat of retaliation against any nation which tries to impose carbon taxes on US shipping.
Trump tells countries to ax talks on shipping carbon tax, or else
The attack on the shipping deal is part of a wider U.S. rejection of policies to fight climate change.
APRIL 9, 2025 10:50 AM CET
LONDON — The Trump administration has upended what it calls “blatantly unfair” talks to set a carbon tax on international shipping and has vowed “reciprocal measures” to shield U.S. ships from any fees, according to a letter seen by POLITICO.
…
It was circulated to many embassies of the other countries in attendance by the U.S. government. It was seen by POLITICO, having been obtained by an industry group via a national delegation, and was confirmed by other participants in the talks.
The letter stated: “President Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the U.S. or the interest of the American people.”
…
Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-scrap-maritime-decarbonization-talks/
The Trump administration and Vice President Vance have also taken a firm line against attempts by overseas bodies to censor American free speech.
JD Vance says US could drop support for NATO if Europe tries to regulate Elon Musk’s platforms
Republican vice presidential nominee says ‘Germans and other nations’ – not Russia – would ‘have to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction’
Gustaf Kilander
Washington DC
Tuesday 17 September 2024 22:39 BSTJD Vance has suggested that American support for NATO should be predicated on the European Union not regulating Elon Musk and his X social media platform, formerly known as Twitter.
The Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio senator claimed in an interview with YouTuber Shawn Ryan that a top EU official had threatened to arrest the billionaire if he allowed former President Donald Trump back on X.
“The leader, I forget exactly which official it was within the European Union, but sent Elon this threatening letter that basically said, ‘We’re going to arrest you if you platform Donald Trump,’ who, by the way, is the likely next president of the United States,” Vance said in the interview published last week.
…
Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-elon-musk-x-twitter-donald-trump-b2614525.html
I’m guessing any nation which attempts to use this absurd judgement as an excuse to loot US companies or punish US social media companies will face a similarly vigorous response from the Trump Administration.
It is unfortunate the court consultative opinion only appears to be available in Spanish. If any fluent Spanish speakers have time to wade through 234 pages of legalise, or can find more recent documents, please post any other interesting clauses in the court ruling in comments. This would be a useful exercise even if an English version of the ruling is made available, sometimes different language versions of documents contain substantial discrepancies.
There ought to be a law, it should only rain on work days.
When I was teaching, I wrote my two Senators (~2005) saying that “I understand you are considering legislation to control the climate. Please include clauses that it should only rain at night thus not disrupting economic activity in the daytime. Also please allow the midwest to have a short span of very cold windter weather to deal with insects and otherwise mild winters and moderate summers with adequate rain.” One senator’s office ignored me. The other sent their inane form letter that starts, “We too are very concerned about climate change…”
Whenever I’ve met any politicians- they give a big smile and vigorous handshake and say “I like your ideas- stay in touch”. Then when I reach out- I get no response. Ticks me off.
It is true different languages can have different meanings. But let us make this clear, CO2 can not cause CAGW, period. No matter what language you use if you say otherwise you are wrong. We don’t give a damn whether you believe the opposite or not, you are wrong. Take a hike.
A scheme hyped by colossal idiots.
Judges are increasingly biased fools. And they are not scientists, so can also easily be conned, it seems to me.
I take issue with “increasingly“.
“There is a human right to a stable climate…” You wonder what planet they come from, it sure ain’t this one. If you’re looking for a stable climate, you better go somewhere else :<)
Even though the writing is on the wall, they aren’t giving up. Too much invested in the AGW scam to give up now. Soon they will be left with only countries that are/were expecting free money. How much have they received so far? I hope the UN gets all the blow back it deserves for foisting this scam on the world.
I didn’t know that descendants from King Canute’s court had emigrated to South America
Along with other fleeing members of failed regimes with war crimes responsibilities.
King Canute made a point that we cannot control things like the tides and he would if he were living today say the same thing about weather and the climate. Unfortunately he has been discredited not unlike many who reject climate alarmism today by twisting or distorting his intent.
So Costa-Reeka want to be disallowed from using fossil fuels.
While they do have a lot of hydro, they don’t actually DO anything.
They have to cater to expats and retirees while suppressing news of their tropical diseases.
It’s not clear to me how she’s using the word “state”. I think she means the definition most Americans consider a synonym of “nation”.
I think state = nation is a reasonable interpretation in this context, certainly the context which makes sense to me.
Yup. In “UN-Speak” a ‘nation’ is a “State”.
There is ‘nacion’, referring to the people, and ‘estado’ referring to the legal entity.
Most Americans are ignorant of American history after more than a century of the Left’s anti-American march through the institutions.
We are meant to be the united States of America and not the Republic of America with subordinate districts or provinces. The former colonies were sovereign states that freely chose to associate in a federal union.
The leftist public school indoctrination has relentlessly obscured the role of our sovereign states within our federal union. Their misinformation has, as you accurately write, brought most Americans to the ignorant condition of believing that a state is a subdivision of a country and the federal government is the ‘central government’.
Since the evil Woodrow Wilson occupied the White House, we have lost the true meaning of the federal government. It was meant to do a few critical enumerated functions with everything else retained by (not delegated to!) the states and the People.
The sovereign states delegated some of their powers to the federal government because those functions could best be handled at a larger scope, chiefly the defense against foreign enemies, regulating commerce among the states including foreign states, minting coins with consistent value, establishing consistent units of measure for commerce, setting tariffs on imported goods, establishing the rules for immigration and naturalization, etc.
The founding fathers would be appalled at what we have done with their republic. It is now a vast complicated scheme to transfer wealth from those who work to parasites of two classes, the elite and their clients.
What is the correct legalese translation for “Sod off, swampy!”?
Yeah! Only my HOA has enough authority to make me censor skeptics.
‘Porque no te callas’, why don’t you shut up.
“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.”
Search for the “Arkell” paragraph on Wikipedia’s “Private Eye” webpage for the (unsuitable for polite company) details.
Declare them to be a terror org. , capture and send to Sudan.
End of problem .
😉
Ed Miliband, giving evidence to a Select Committee, stated that his raison d’etre was to set Britain as a example, give leadership to the world in Net Zero. I wonder who is following? His example, so far, has been a negative response, especially with the loss of the United States. His other stance is ‘cleanliness’, which is odd considering the mucky business in producing the kit driving his dream and the odd insertion of Drax, wood chip burning, in his energy mix. Considering the legislation that set up his ambitions was never submitted to a vote I think we can say that he is dealing in mania and not facts. He was questioned about steps being taken towards mitigation which he waved aside, basically saying the such investment would detract from his core priority. The fact that, in many minds, mitigation is the key gets short shrift and floods, for instance, are useful as a major element in his visualisation of the problem he aims to cure! Floods are not misery for millions nor a recurring element for the Met Office propaganda (which they now seem to have rolled back on) as they are used typify his cause. How contrary. In the meantime we hover over the twin tragedies that struck Iberia, the Valencia floods and the peninsula’s black out. Britain just isn’t working based on this man’s word and the opaqueness of the quango that shields him. It’s a political stitch-up more than climate catastrophe and considering the stances of the parties opposing Labour, the chances are that whatever he spends will be lost money when his opponents avowals are all about reining in Miliband’s protestations and, in varying degrees, either slowing the process or abandoning it in favour of fossil fuel.
Ai caramba! The list of persons who will be refused US entry visas gets longer all the time.
No one on this planet has a right to anything.
No one has a right to goods or services that must be provided by someone else, that is true and should be obvious (although it is clearly not judging by all the rights asserted by the Left).
Everyone has natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the so-called negative rights – the government shall make no law infringing…freedom of speech and religion, etc.
Those are man made rights. Nature does not recognise them.
Those are man made rights.
I’ve seen a good non-religious defense of certain basic rights as “natural rights”. I wish I could remember exactly where I read it, but it’s been done, and it’s logical.
The argument is that those rights are natural in the context of evolution of a society. I don’t remember ever hearing an argument that nature itself grants you any rights.
I would say the term “natural rights” is derived from the definition of natural that means “relating to earthly human or physical nature as distinct from the spiritual or supernatural realm”
You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a court appointed attorney. You have the right to sing the blues. You have the right to cable TV… that’s very important. You have the right to sublet. You have the right to paint the walls… no loud colors. – Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment
Gee, who could have predicted that activists corrupting one group (scientists) would move to another (courts)? Here, the progs had to fabricate a “court” so the pre-written screed could be signed by a “judge”. Such authority is so intimidating to an ordinary schlub like me.
It’s a simple variation of the abuse of “experts” by plaintiffs lawyers.
” That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt to, to cooperate internationally,and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation”.
The court seems to be blissfully unaware that it is totally unqualified to have even the slightest ability to discern what is “best available” science, or even the definition of “climate disinformation”.
By asserting its dominion over this simply proves its total ignorance. Such hubris may be common in junior high school or some college drinking parties, but is proof of disqualification for any adult endeavor, much less that of an international court.
So the beach lawyers have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be ignored.
The “Climate movement” or whatever you want to call it is a full blown RELIGION.
Pound sand.
“Actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science”
That’s OK, the best available science indicates that there is no crisis, or CAGW.
Carry on as normal.
Best available science shows the planet’s atmospheric CO2 level is very low compared to plant needs.