A big fat old ruling came down this morning from yet another European-run tribunal on world affairs that rational Americans don't give a rat's patootie about, but which will have every mouth-breathing climate cultist calling us international criminals.
These people are so tiresome. I wish they would realize charade time is over.
Anyway, the august body of ill repute in question is 'The World Court' aka 'The International Court of Justice' (ICJ) (not The Justice League), and is - surprise! - located in The Hague, Netherlands. [Beege adds: updated info below and thank YOU, Watt]
See? There are all kinds of problems with the concept already.
...Established in 1945 and located in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ is one of the six “principal organs” of the UN (and the only body not located in New York). It was created to (1) settle disputes between countries and (2) provide advisory opinions on legal questions brought by other UN organs. Importantly, the ICJ is independent of the UN.
...While Member States of the UN are automatically parties to court statutes (meaning they can bring a case before the court), that doesn’t necessarily mean that the ICJ has jurisdiction over them. The U.S., for instance, withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. Other countries who have not signed the declaration recognizing jurisdiction of the court include China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.
That really burns Democrats, progressives, and liberals' butts in general, because they would love nothing more than to see our annoying and supreme Constitutional rights superseded by an international judicial body that thinks exactly the way they do, and always has.
Case in point is the, um...case in point.
It all started back in 2019 when residents of the tiny Pacific island of Vanuatu heard this and were frightened out of their minds.
Good Morning!!!
— Kate Hyde (@KateHydeNY) March 10, 2019
Here's video of when Hank Johnson was concerned putting troops on Guam would make the island tip over. Happy Sunday!!! pic.twitter.com/sy6XZtOSeL
HOLY CRAP! WHAT IF WE TIP OVER?!
Okay. Not exactly, but close. They were still worried about getting their feet wet as climate change caused the polar caps and Earth's glaciers to melt, the ocean's waters to rise, and little places like Vanuatu to shrink from the predicted inundation.
A small group of young islanders came up with the idea of suing the rest of the world to force them into behaving.
...The Vanuatu case traces its roots back to 2019, when 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific started campaigning for accountability. The UN has ranked Vanuatu as one of the world’s most at-risk countries for natural hazards, the bulk of which have been made worse by climate change.
They organized, met, and influenced all the right people, created a movement, and were able to bring their case to The Hague for a week of oral arguments in front of the ICJ this past December.
There are fifteen justices on the court who, I am supposing, have spent all these months diligently going over the emotional pleas and whatever climate emergency evidence was presented.
They were scheduled to announce their decision today, and Reuters was doing battlefield prep for the ruling even before the doors opened, which just cracked me up.
Check out this language.
...Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague carries legal and political weight, and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.
LEGAL EXPERTS SAY even though they have no legal power, what they say must always be considered.
And the two issues to be settled by the decision were posed to the panel by the United Nations General Assembly. Yet another blackmark in the 'nope' column.
...The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries’ obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.
Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!"
Okay.
So the moment came, and it turned out to be pretty much what you'd expect from fifteen bloated plutocrats ensconced in The Hague.
NOW - UN International Court of Justice rules that climate change is an existential "universal risk" to all nations, unequivocally caused by human activities, and member states have a "duty" to prevent it. pic.twitter.com/hfQpGTBxYZ
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) July 23, 2025
SQUEEEE! The ICJ has declared nations 'have an obligation' to tackle climate change, and the little guys can take them to court if they don't believe enough is being done.
...Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don’t.
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.
Notably, the court said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.
All the little countries are lickin' dey chops and breaking out the 'R' word - reparations.
...“The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future,” said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.
Yup. There it is.
BREAKING: “The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday said countries need to meet their climate obligations and not doing so could pave the way for other states affected by climate change to seek reparations in litigation in specific cases.”
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) July 23, 2025
GTFO. https://t.co/nIExTShzZs pic.twitter.com/w1jSb3X56J
As far as the United States is concerned, my cynical little heart has an inkling this was a slap more at Trump than anyone else. The larger countries had argued that the 2015 IPCC agreements should have been enough guidelines. I believe that that would have mitigated the decision, had Trump not been president. But these cultists are looking to send a message, and they are running out of pigeons to do so as the Green grift runs itself out of money and steam, being exposed for the sham it is.
They are also watching the seismic shift in the US right now and totally doing the freakout about our reverse gears grinding.
If the EPA does kill the "endangerment finding," that would set up a major clash over environmental and administrative law and agency power that will go right to the Supreme Court, one of whose decisions in 2007 is what started it all to begin with. https://t.co/ukOo6OJHt3
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) July 23, 2025
Reparations to a Pacific island for cyclones and earthquakes?
This is an entirely hyperbolic article, written to invoke sympathy for the island's 'climate change' causal crusade, but I'm not buying it.
For one thing, how does the ocean only rise at Vanuatu and nowhere else? Unless the island is sinking? Oh. Gosh. They mention that.
And the trouble the coral reef has in the story in the aftermath of a particularly fierce cyclone? That's not climate change. And you should see our bay after a hurricane. We lost all our oyster beds and seagrasses for years.
Hello.
I mean, see if you parse it like I did.
When John Warmington first began diving the reefs outside his home in Vanuatu’s Havannah Harbor a decade ago, the coral rose like a sunken forest — tall stands of staghorns branched into yellow antlers, plate corals layered like canopies, and clouds of darting fish wove through the labyrinth.
“We used to know every inch of that reef,” he said. “It was like a friend.”
Now, it’s unrecognizable. After Cyclone Pam battered the reef in 2015, sediment from inland rivers smothered the coral beds. Crown-of-thorns starfish swept in and devoured the recovering polyps. Back-to-back cyclones in 2023 crushed what was left. Then, in December 2024, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake shook the seabed.
What remains is a coral graveyard — bleached rubble scattered across the seafloor, habitats collapsed, life vanished. “We’ve come out of the water in tears,” said Warmington, who has logged thousands of dives on this single reef. “We just see heartbreak.”
That heartbreak is becoming more common across this Pacific island nation, where intensifying cyclones, rising seas and saltwater intrusion are reshaping coastlines and threatening daily life. Since 1993, sea levels around Vanuatu’s shores have risen by about 6 millimeters (.24 inches) per year — significantly faster than the global average — and in some areas, tectonic activity has doubled that rate.
Vanuatu is a volcanic archipelago comprising over 80 islands. The head post picture is from one of them.
I'll bet they've got weird things happening all the time, but my Toyota and air conditioning didn't cause it.
Sorry, not sorry.
Points for trying, though.
I can't wait to see Trump's Truth Social post about this 'ruling.'
