SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
international court of justice
Israel OKs 13 New Settlements to 'Fracture' West Bank and Create 'Irreversible Status Quo'
One group called the move "yet another example of the abhorrent and utter disregard of the international rules-based order by Israel."
Jul 03, 2026
Israel's Security Cabinet on Thursday approved the construction of 13 new settlements in the central West Bank, a move critics slammed as the latest effort to "fracture" Palestine and cement Israeli control over the illegally occupied territory with the goal of annexation.
Israeli media reported that the Security Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gave the green light to the new settler colonies in the Binyamin area, with the first phase of construction expected to start in the coming months.
The Binyamin Regional Council has argued that now is the time for building the strategically located settlements due to political and security conditions, which present an opportunity to establish facts on the ground that will make Israeli control a fait accompli.
Condemning the approval as a “dangerous escalation,” the Jerusalem Governorate—a nominally administrative division of the Palestinian Authority—asserted that Israel’s settlement plan “seeks to create new geographical realities on the ground,” and would “undermine the prospects of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state.”
That, say critics—and some Israeli officials—is the point. Netanyahu last year promised that “there will be no Palestinian state," while Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and other officials have also vowed to annex some or all of the West Bank.
"Israel’s continued expansion of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is not an isolated policy decision but part of a long-standing strategy to entrench permanent Israeli control over occupied land, further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory, and prevent any prospects of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state," the UK-based International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) said in response to the Security Cabinet vote. "The Binyamin plan represents a significant escalation of that policy, accelerating changes to the occupied territory that would create an irreversible status quo."
ICJP called the move "yet another example of the abhorrent and utter disregard of the international rules-based order by Israel" and "yet another attempt to further fragment Palestinian territory and isolate East Jerusalem from its surrounding Palestinian communities."
Madar, the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies, said Wednesday that construction of illegal Israeli settler outposts has soared from an average of 8 per year between 2012-22 to 32 in 2023, 62 in 2024, and 86 last year.
Palestinian officials and international human rights groups have long warned that Israeli settlement expansion is destroying the possibility of a two‑state solution.
United Nations resolutions and the UN's International Court of Justice have affirmed the illegality of Israel's settlements and occupation of Palestine, the latter of which the ICJ found in 2024 is an illegal form of apartheid that must end as soon as possible. The ICJ also ruled that Israeli settler colonization of the West Bank amounts to annexation, also a crime under international law.
Efforts by the Israeli government, military, and settlers to expand West Bank settlement activity have accelerated dramatically since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. With the world’s attention focused on Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, Israeli soldiers and settlers have ramped up the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territory.
Attacks on West Bank Palestinians, including pogroms carried out by mobs of settlers protected and sometimes joined by Israeli troops, have killed at least 1,105 Palestinians—at least 242 of them children—since October 2023, according to the latest report published by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Pays for a Broken Energy System? The Case for Climate Reparations
It is time to count the true cost of the climate crisis, and for those responsible to pay their fair share.
Jun 17, 2026
Big Oil and Gas CEOs are raking in obscene profits from the energy shock triggered by the war in Iran, in some cases rivaling the GDP of entire African nations. Meanwhile, ordinary people are left to shoulder the consequences: soaring energy bills, rising food prices, higher costs for medicine, and even the closure of schools. If this crisis does not expose who truly benefits from the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, nothing will.
Wealthy countries justify cutting aid budgets by pointing to fiscal constraints, yet continue to pour vast sums into supporting fossil fuel production. In 2024 alone, implicit fossil fuel subsidies amounted to an estimated $6.7 trillion. But when communities on the frontlines of climate impacts call for reparations or compensation for the losses and damages they have suffered, the conversation suddenly becomes politically contentious and financially unthinkable. The irony is not lost on ordinary people.
This double standard is at the heart of the climate justice debate. It is time to count the true cost of the climate crisis, and for those responsible to pay their fair share.
The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion on climate change offers hope for environmental justice. The world's highest court affirmed what communities have said for decades: Countries have a legal obligation—not just a moral one—to prevent environmental harm, and those harmed may be entitled to reparations. It is telling that some leaders needed the ICJ to remind them of their duty to care for our common home. After 30 climate conferences relying on voluntary, unaccountable processes, we hope this opinion brings real accountability to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Reparations are not charity; they are a necessary investment in the future of people historically harmed by environmental destruction.
As the negotiations in Bonn continue, amid political tensions, a standing agenda item on loss and damage, a theme which has been missing from the majority of the negotiations, will ensure compliance with legal obligations, including on climate reparations, as clarified by the ICJ.
Developing countries must stand their ground. We need an honest, collective reckoning about who causes the harm, who is most affected, and who must pay for the damage. These principles underpin any fair legal system, and there is no justification for treating them as optional
I, along with many others, have argued that dependence on fossil fuels drives rising inequality. Just as importantly, climate change—caused by burning those same fuels—disproportionately devastates vulnerable communities. What happens in the Strait of Hormuz doesn't end there; it ripples through our global energy security. As the war looms in Iran, frontline communities worry about the impending fossil fuel crisis.
The world’s energy dependency is built on extraction, profit, and vulnerability. But who pays the price? It is always the same people on the losing end of this broken system—the very same communities brutally affected by the climate crisis. Those least responsible for conflict pay the price for disruptions to the fossil fuel supply chain, threatening agricultural access and food security. Similarly, those who contribute the least to the climate crisis pay the highest price for its impacts. The system thrives on their vulnerability.
Fossil fuels account for about 86% of global carbon emissions. They are not just an insecure energy source vulnerable to weaponized interdependence; they are the primary driver of climate breakdown. They have disrupted weather patterns and accelerated disasters like intense droughts and devastating floods, harming food systems, cultural heritage, water access, and critical infrastructure like hospitals. This continuous burning has escalated climate injustice in the Global South, Indigenous territories, and Black communities in the United States.
This unequal distribution of burdens is unconscionable. According to Oxfam, a person from the richest 0.1% produces more carbon pollution in a day than someone in the bottom 50% produces all year. Developed countries have already exhausted their carbon budgets, yet they continue expanding extraction. Nations like the US—responsible for over 20% of historical CO2 emissions—carry a massive climate debt that must be repaid.
Meanwhile, developing countries are paying a devastating price for a crisis they did little to cause. Africa is responsible for less than 4% of global historical emissions, yet a single climate disaster can wipe out 5-15% of an African nation’s annual GDP, leaving communities to rebuild alone. This devastation is a lived reality in the Horn of Africa, where millions face climate-induced malnutrition, and in Southern Africa, which is battered by an unending pattern of floods and cyclones.
At the same time, these nations are trapped under mounting debt burdens as they confront escalating impacts with little financial support. It is a harsh reminder that not everyone reaps what they sow. Those on the winning side often do not care, so long as the harm stays far from their doorstep. Someone once asked me if the world would respond to the climate crisis if there was a "major tragedy." My instant thought was that major tragedies are already unfolding in Indigenous territories and the Global South.
The question of reparations remains highly contested because it speaks truth to power and demands true justice. Climate harm has been primarily driven by corporations and Global North governments. The rich nations that benefited from burning coal, oil, and gas must pay their fair share for repair. Through movement assembly work led by Taproot Earth, frontline communities defined what climate reparations must entail: the restoration of healthy relationships, debt cancellation, and accountable systems grounded in Black and Indigenous sovereignty.
Reparations are not charity; they are a necessary investment in the future of people historically harmed by environmental destruction. Current climate finance systems perpetuate injustice by offering loans instead of grants. True climate reparations demand both the abolition of debt and the provision of grant-based finance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Celebrate World Court Ruling Enshrining Right to Strike
The ICJ’s landmark advisory opinion comes as legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing around the world.
May 31, 2026
The right to strike is under attack throughout the world, including in the United States. Labor strikes are currently forbidden or restricted in the majority of countries.
Now, in a landmark 43-page advisory opinion issued May 21, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) has determined that the right to strike is protected under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
“At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one’s labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement.
The ILO is the United Nations agency that sets global labor standards. It has 187 member states and has adopted 191 conventions since its founding in 1919. The ILO considers Convention No. 87 to be one of its 11 fundamental conventions.
In 2023, the ILO asked the ICJ to settle an internal dispute about whether Convention No. 87 gives workers the right to strike, which is not specifically addressed in the convention. Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, many courts accept them as authoritative legal decisions.
The ICJ ruled in its 10-4 opinion that a strike “is one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organizations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour, thereby ensuring the effective exercise of the freedom of association protected under Convention No. 87.”
The Court found “that protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided for in Convention No. 87.”
In reaching that conclusion, the Court considered provisions in two 1996 Covenants that contain relevant rules of international law regarding the right to strike. Both refer to Convention No. 87.
Article 8, paragraph 1 (d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) expressly protects the right to strike, if it is exercised in conformity with domestic laws.
Article 22, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to freedom of association. The ICJ noted that for more than 25 years, the Human Rights Committee — which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR — has considered the right to strike to be encompassed in the protection of freedom of association.
Due to the high degree of overlap between the states parties to the ICESCR and ICCPR, and Convention No. 87, the ICJ determined there was a common understanding among them on the right to strike. The Court thus concluded “that an interpretation taking into account the relevant rules of international law contained in the ICESCR and the ICCPR indicates that the protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided by Convention No. 87.”
No Right to Organize Without the Right to Strike
“For generations, working people have understood a simple truth: The freedom to join a union means nothing if you cannot withhold your labor when bosses refuse to listen. Now, the world’s highest court has affirmed that truth,” said Jeffrey Vogt, director of the International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network, which issued the call for the ILO referral of this case to the ICJ.
The ICJ decision “affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: there is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike,” Shuler said in her statement. “When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed. The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality.”
“This is an important day for the International Labor Organization [ILO], and for its continued relevance in the world of work. However, the significance of this opinion extends well beyond the institutional context in Geneva,” the ILAW Network wrote in a statement.
The ICJ advisory opinion came “at a moment of acute pressure on the international labour rights system,” ILAW stated. “Across the world, the right to strike is under sustained attack — through restrictive legislation, expansive judicial interpretation of essential services, the criminalisation of trade union activity, and the use of dismissals, injunctions, and damages claims to deter collective action.”
Legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing. In 2022, strikes were outlawed or stringently restricted in 129 of the 148 countries tallied by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), one of the six organizations with consultative status at the ILO Governing Body.
The ITUC, which represents 191 million workers in 169 countries and territories, is dedicated to trade union democracy and independence. It has regional organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The ICJ decision “is important not only for workers and trade unions, but also for governments and responsible businesses,” ITUC stressed.
This decision “will serve as a powerful interpretive tool before national constitutional and labour courts, before regional human rights bodies, and before the ILO’s own supervisory bodies,” ILAW noted. “It strengthens the hand of every worker and union challenging strike bans, broad essential-services designations, criminal sanctions against strikers, prohibitions on solidarity and political strikes, and the dismissal and blacklisting of workers who exercise this right.”
Ruling Will Affect Tens of Millions of Workers
In October, 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, presented oral testimony before the ICJ, and other nations filed written contributions. The majority of participants supported the right to strike, which is guaranteed in most European countries.
Harold Koh, who represented the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) before the ICJ, told the judges that the case would “affect the real rights of tens of millions of working people around the world.” If the Court ruled that the Convention didn’t protect the right to strike, Koh warned, “National employer groups would contest the right to strike country by country, focusing first on nations with compliant courts, weak civil societies and ineffective media.”
Jeffrey Vogt worked with the legal team of the ITUC on the briefs and oral arguments presented to the ICJ. Vogt’s co-authored book, The Right to Strike in International Law, provided a legal roadmap for the case.
Vogt told Truthout that “the written view of the US (under the Biden administration) was to support the right to strike, albeit on narrower grounds than what we had argued. When the Trump administration came in, they withdrew the Biden era brief but fortunately did not appear for oral arguments and take a contrary view.”
“The decision deals with the right to strike in the abstract — does the convention protect it — but does not go into the modalities,” Vogt added. The Court wrote that its “conclusion that the right to strike is protected by Convention No. 87 does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
“That was a conscious decision,” Vogt noted. “We did not want the court to attempt to define the scope, especially since we believe that is the proper role of the ILO supervisory system.” Vogt said that “the ICJ gave ‘great weight’ to the views of the supervisory system, which is helpful.” And although “the ILO has supported secondary strikes,” in which workers strike in solidarity with other workers at a different employer, the ICJ decision didn’t opine on that specific issue.
The Right to Strike in the US
“The right to withhold one’s labor, inherent in the right to strike, belongs to all workers, but it has been restricted,” Jeanne Mirer, a labor lawyer in private practice working with the International Commission for Labor Rights, told Truthout. “Many unions have agreed never to strike while a collective bargaining agreement is in effect.”
Most private sector workers in the US have the right to strike under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employees, including international and undocumented workers, cannot be fired or disciplined for participating in a lawful strike.
“Those exempted from the NLRA, such as agricultural and domestic workers, are not restricted in the right to strike but have no protections against discharge if they strike and do not have the power to prevent such retaliation,” Mirer added.
Some states have their own laws granting protection to domestic workers and 14 states guarantee farmworkers collective bargaining rights.
Railroad and airline workers are not covered by the NLRA, but they come under the Railway Labor Act, which has several limitations on the right to strike.
In recent years, Congress and the courts have narrowed the definition of “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA. Union membership is dropping. Nevertheless, strike actions in the US increased by almost 50 percent in 2022, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
In 2023, the US Supreme Court weakened the legal protections for striking in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, making it easier for employers to sue unions in state courts. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing, “The right to strike is fundamental to American labor law.” She noted:
Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their masters. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the [National Labor Relations Act] even if economic injury results.
The NLRA’s protections for private sector workers don’t extend to public sector employees. “Public employees in the United States have been restricted in many ways from striking,” Mirer said.
Federal workers are legally prohibited from striking. Thirty-six states prohibit public sector workers from striking. Three other states that haven’t addressed the issue would likely outlaw public sector strikes as well. In the 12 states where strikes are not per se unlawful, various preconditions must be met before workers can engage in strikes.
The World Federation of Trade Unions, which played a decisive role in the creation of Convention No. 87 in 1948, applauded the ICJ’s decision:
[I]t is clear that the existence of a class-oriented and militant trade union movement is the essential, decisive, and irreplaceable factor to ensure that the right to strike, as well as conventions, collective bargaining, labor laws, and workers’ achievements, are not merely empty words on paper but are implemented in practice. The WFTU reiterates its call for struggle in every country, sector, and workplace to safeguard the sacred right to strike in practice.
“It is up to workers and their organizations to build on the ICJ decision to ensure the right to strike can be an effective tool to build worker power,” Mirer said.
This article was originally published at Truthout
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Worldwide Applaud ICJ Ruling Affirming Workers' Right to Strike
One Somali labor federation said the ruling "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
May 22, 2026
Labor leaders around the world cheered Thursday's landmark World Court ruling affirming that the right to strike is protected under international law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled 10-4 in an advisory opinion—meaning it's not legally binding—that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention of 1948, also known as International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 87.
However, the tribunal also declared that its finding "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right."
The case originated with a 2023 request by the ILO Governing Body amid disagreement among the agency's three constituencies—governments, workers, and employers—over the right to strike.
"For decades, this issue has generated one of the deepest disputes within the ILO's tripartite structure... creating a deadlock over the interpretation of international labor standards," explained Kenyan labor law expert Ayaga Max Liambilah.
"Workers and trade unions argued that the right to organize becomes ineffective without the ability to strike, viewing strikes as essential tools for collective bargaining and protection of workers' interests," he said. "Employers' organizations, particularly the International Organization of Employers (IOE), maintained that Convention 87 does not expressly include a right to strike and that reading it into the convention creates obligations never explicitly negotiated by states."
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representative Paapa Danquah told the court during proceedings that “strike action has been our vital tool... to improve labor conditions and to defend our human dignities."
IOE secretary general Roberto Suárez Santos countered that Convention 87 does not explicitly address the right to strike. After the court's decision, he underscored that the tribunal did not rule on the "precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
Unions and workers around the world welcomed the ICJ decision.
“We thank the World Court for this advisory opinion," said ITUC secretary general Luc Triangle, whose organization represents more than 200 million workers in over 160 countries. "The court has confirmed that international law supports the long-standing understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades."
“This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice, and for the credibility of the international labor standards system," he added.
Sonny Matula, president of Federation of Free Workers—a Filipino labor organization—"joyfully and warmly" welcomed the ruling.
"In the Philippines, this is not a foreign concept," he said. "Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."
"The strike is labor's last voice when dialogue has failed," Matula added. "Without the right to strike, we can say that freedom of association is like a silent campaign, unheard."
Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the Union Network International (UNI) Global Union, said in a statement that “as any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!"
"The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system," Hoffman asserted. "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ, and to the ITUC for its steadfast commitment to this case."
The Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU) issued a statement applauding the ICJ ruling, which it said "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
"It reaffirms with legal certainty that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic labor relations, collective bargaining, and the protection of workers’ dignity, rights, and interests," FESTU continued.
"The court’s opinion has reinforced the legitimacy of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and restored clarity on a matter that for years had been the subject of intense international debate and institutional disagreement," the federation added. "This is a defining moment in the history of the global trade union movement and a major achievement for multilateralism, social justice, and international law."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that "this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike."
"When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed," she continued. "The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality."
"At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one's labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law," Shuler added. "The AFL-CIO commends the International Trade Union Confederation and its legal team for their efforts in this result."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite US Sabotage Efforts, UN Passes Historic Climate Crisis Resolution
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens."
May 21, 2026
Despite efforts by the United States government to block and water down the effort, the United Nations, on Wednesday, in a 141-8 vote, backed a resolution that confirms member states have a legal obligation to address the planetary climate crisis by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
With nearly two-thirds of the global body voting in favor, the eight countries that voted against the resolution were: Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US, and Yemen. Twenty-eight nations abstained.
The adopted resolution, brought to the UN by the low-lying island nation of Vanuatu, codifies the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, which the ICJ issued last year. As UN News reports:
The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.
Governments are urged to cooperate in good faith and continuously coordinate efforts to tackle climate change globally and ensure that climate policies safeguard the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.
Rebecca Brown, CEO and president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), was among those celebrating the vote as a significant win.
"The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."
“Today, the UN General Assembly affirmed what the International Court of Justice made clear — that climate action is a legal obligation," Brown said. "With this resolution, countries carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability in the years to come. This resolution demonstrates that multilateralism works, and that the global majority stands resolute in defense of the rule of law, demands meaningful accountability, and real climate action. By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice."
In a statement following the vote, UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the outcome as the passage of the resolution "a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis."
Guterres thanked the leadership of Vanuatu and the broader coalition of island nations and others who led the fight for the resolution and demonstrated "moral clarity" on the issue for all the world to see.
"Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end," he said. "The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."
Samuel (L) and his father Phillip search through the ruins of their family home on March 16, 2015 in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Cyclone Pam has hit South Pacific islands on Saturday with hurricane force winds, huge ocean swells and flash flooding and has caused severe damage to housing. Aid agencies say it could be one of the worst disasters ever to hit the region. (Photo by Dave Hunt-Pool/Getty Images)
As Guterres championed the need for a redoubled effort to supplant fossil fuels with cleaner, more renewable forms of energy, environmental and human rights groups also championed the resolution's passage—especially in the face of opposition from the fossil fuel lobby and governments taking their side, like the US, Russia, Israel, and others.
In February, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration—which has pulled out of the international Paris Agreement established in 2015 and continues to act overtly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which helped bankroll his 2024 campaign—was pushing members at the UN to mount a pressure campaign against Vanuatu to drop the resolution.
While US deputy ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce claimed this week that the resolution included "inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels," groups like Amnesty International, 350.org, the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), and many others heralded its passage precisely because of the pressure it rightly places on the oil, gas, and coal industries.
“At a time when fragmentation between nations feels more visible than ever, the UN resolution endorsing the ICJ climate ruling offers a renewed path for international cooperation," said Amnesty's Camile Cortez, a senior climate justice campaigner for Amnesty. "Political and authoritarian choices by some world leaders, like rolling back climate protections or revoking phase-out regulations, have weakened global progress just when we need stronger climate action. Fossil fuel infrastructure alone poses risks for the health and livelihoods of at least 2 billion people globally, roughly a quarter of the world’s population."
"Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability."
Fenton Lutunatabua, the Pacific and Caribbean lead for 350.org, said the UN vote represents a "critical next stage" for the ICJ's landmark ruling that "was not meant to sit on a shelf," but instead lead to action in line with international law and the obligations of member states.
"This vote shows the vast majority agreed there is an absolute obligation to stop runaway climate change," said Lutunatabua. "Today, we get closer to that goal, and our children get closer to a safer, more secure future. Our communities also get closer to receiving justice for the suffering the fossil fuel industry has caused, and the havoc wreaked upon our shorelines as we pay with our lives and our pockets to rebuild after yet another cyclone, yet another flood."
PICAN director Dr. Rufino Varea said the victory at the UN on Wednesday "belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off" by those who have disregarded the damage caused by the climate crisis driven by the fossil fuel industry and broader corporate greed.
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens," said Varea. "For generations, Pacific peoples have protected our oceans, our lands, and our cultures while facing rising seas, loss, and displacement caused by others. Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability. Accountability to frontline communities, to future generations, and to the shared responsibility we hold to protect life, dignity, the environment, and our collective future. This moment belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Germany Pulls Legal Support for Israel in ICJ Gaza Genocide Case
Berlin says it needs to focus on its defense in a separate ICJ case in which Nicaragua accuses Germany of supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
Mar 19, 2026
Germany said Wednesday that it will drop its planned intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide against Israel so that it can better focus on its own defense in a separate ICJ case filed by Nicaragua accusing Berlin of enabling Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via arms sales.
Deputy German Foreign Minister Josef Hinterseher said during a press conference in Berlin that his country "will not intervene" on Israel's side in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case filed at the Hague-based tribunal in December 2023.
This is a marked departure from Germany's January 2024 announcement that it would intervene on behalf of Israel in the case, arguing that the genocide allegation made by South Africa had "no basis whatsoever."
Nearly two dozen nations, most recently the Netherlands, Namibia, and Iceland, have either formally intervened on the side of South Africa or announced their intent to do so. The Herero and Nama peoples of modern-day Namibia suffered a genocide during the region's colonization by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A handful of countries including the United States, Hungary, and Fiji have also intervened on behalf of Israel.
In 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, arguing that the European nation “has not only failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people... but has contributed to the commission of genocide in violation" of the Genocide Convention.
Germany has provided financial, military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel. It also temporarily halted financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a dozen of its worjers were involved in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Unlike Germany, the US and Israel are not members of the ICJ. The US quit the tribunal after it ruled against the Reagan administration in Nicaragua v. United States, a 1984 ruling that determined the US illegally supported Contra terrorists and mined Nicaraguan harbors.
However, under the court's territorial jurisdiction powers, countries that are not members of the court can still be brought before it for crimes committed in member states.
Further complicating matters, Germany is one of numerous countries which have intervened in Gambia v. Myanmar, which the African nation filed at the ICJ in 2019 amid the Burmese junta's ongoing genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The ICJ has issued several provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel, including directives to prevent genocidal acts and allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip amid a burgeoning famine. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders.
The US under the Biden and Trump administrations pressured ICJ members to refrain from intervening on behalf of South Africa. The Trump administration has also sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court (ICC)‚ which in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In Germany, as in several other Western nations, authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, free expression of support for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel. Critics say the persistent framing of German national identity around enduring guilt for the Nazis' wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is driving overzealous policing of dissent and conflation of pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism.
This perceived moral burden, say observers, risks stifling legitimate political debate, curtailing free speech, and criminalizing solidarity with Palestinians under the pretext of historical responsibility. This has driven German actions from secretly funding Israel's development of nuclear weapons over half a century ago to brutally assaulting and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—including women, elders, minors, and people with disabilities—after the October 2023 attack.
German police punch an anti-genocide woman in front of the cameras.
[image or embed]
— Antifa_Ultras (@antifa-ultras.bsky.social) October 7, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Amnesty International's latest annual human rights report on Germany notes "excessive use of force by police during peaceful protests by climate activists and supporters of Palestinians’ rights," as well as Berlin's "irresponsible arms transfers" to not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Joins ICJ Case to Claim Genocide Allegations Against Israel 'False'
The intervention comes as the US and Israel are waging a joint war on Iran.
Mar 13, 2026
After over two years of arming and otherwise supporting the Israeli government as it lays waste to the Gaza Strip—even after an October ceasefire deal—the United States this week officially joined an International Court of Justice case to defend Israel from allegations of genocide.
The United Nations' primary tribunal announced Friday that the Trump administration had filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ statute. The filing states, "To avoid any doubt, the United States affirms, in the strongest terms possible, that the allegations of 'genocide' against Israel are false."
"They are also unfortunately nothing new," the document continues. "The United States recalls that international fora have been misused to level false charges of 'genocide' against the state of Israel since at least May 1976 as part of a broader campaign (including UN General Assembly resolution 3379) to delegitimize the state of Israel and the Jewish people and to justify or encourage terrorism against them."
"Sadly, that effort remains' ongoing," the filing claims. "Only days after Hamas launched its assault of mass rape, murder, and kidnapping on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas actors, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, were already falsely charging Israel once again with 'genocide.'"
The filing comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began a joint war against Iran. Since then, Israel has also returned to bombing Lebanon, despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and again cut off the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The bombing of Gaza by Israel has also continued.
When South Africa initiated its case in December 2023, accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, Israel's bombardment and blockade had killed more than 21,500 people, according to local health officials.
The Gaza Ministry of Health now puts the death toll at 72,136, with another 171,839 wounded—including 651 killed and 1,741 injured since the ceasefire began. Experts around the world have warned that the true figures could be far higher.
The US filing states that "civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent, particularly when they occur in the context of an armed conflict involving urban combat."
However, as South Africa highlighted in its initial application, "repeated statements by Israeli state representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli president, prime minister, and minister of defense express genocidal intent."
"That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard... to Israel's failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine," South Africa's filing states. "It is also clear from the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza."
Fiji, Hungary, and Namibia also intervened in the ICJ case on Thursday. While only Namibia supports South Africa, the interventions came a day after Iceland and the Netherlands also formally backed the arguments against Israel.
In addition to the ICJ case, the International Criminal Court—also based at the Hague—has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza. Trump has retaliated with sanctions against ICC jurists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netherlands, Iceland Join Genocide Case Against Israel at International Court of Justice
With the intervention of two more nations, 18 have now joined in support of the case, initially brought by South Africa.
Mar 12, 2026
The Netherlands and Iceland have joined the case before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
On Wednesday, both nations filed declarations under Article 63 of the ICJ statute, which allows parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of that convention.
The case was filed in 2023 by South Africa, which cited numerous instances of Israeli leaders using genocidal rhetoric amid an onslaught of attacks against civilians.
Since October 2023, official estimates from the Gaza Ministry of Health have found that more than 72,000 people have been killed, though independent reviews have placed the death toll much higher.
Several independent humanitarian organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israel-based organization B'Tselem, have concurred with the intervening parties that Israel's conduct has constituted "genocide."
Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines "genocide" as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Among these acts are killing, inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about their destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, or forcibly transferring their children to other groups.
In its filing before the ICJ, the Netherlands—home to The Hague, where the ICJ is located—argued that Israel's forcible displacement of more than 1 million civilians, killing of more than 20,000 children according to official estimates, and blocking humanitarian aid to use starvation as a weapon of war, are all acts that, when paired with statements from Israeli officials, imply genocidal intent.
The Dutch urged judges on the court to "take account of starvation or the deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid for the purpose of establishing specific intent, in particular when this occurs on the basis of a concerted plan of a consistent pattern of conduct.”
Iceland in particular emphasized Israel's conduct toward the children of Gaza, saying that "attacks on children, including killing and causing serious bodily or mental harm, require special scrutiny as they are particularly indicative of intent to destroy the group."
The pair of European nations brought the total of countries participating in the proceedings up to 18—among them are Belgium, Brazil, Belize, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, and Turkey.
The United States, under the Trump administration, meanwhile, has cut off foreign aid to South Africa for its role in launching the case against Israel, which receives billions of dollars in US military assistance annually.
Iceland's intervention in the genocide case marks the first time it has participated in a substantive case before the ICJ, according to the Icelandic news outlet RÚV.
"With Iceland's participation in South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice, we are using our voice in support of international law and human rights," said its minister for foreign affairs, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir. "And we can be proud of that."
While its decisions are legally binding and could require Israel to cease violations of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ is not a criminal court.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have each been issued arrest warrants as part of separate war crimes proceedings by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which have thus far not been enforced.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICC Rejects Israeli Bid to Thwart Gaza War Crimes Probe
Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Dec 15, 2025
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICJ Rejects Israeli Claims About UNRWA and Orders Officials to Provide More Aid to Gaza
"Yet another Israeli government lie—slavishly repeated by Western media—collapses," said one policy expert.
Oct 22, 2025
The commissioner-general of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees said Wednesday that he welcomed an "unambiguous ruling by the International Court of Justice" affirming that the organization has not been infiltrated by Hamas, as Israel and its allies have persistently claimed, and that Israeli officials must cooperate with the UN to ensure Palestinians receive sufficient aid after nearly two years of starvation policy.
In an advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled 10-1 that as the occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is responsible for providing aid to Palestinians and allowing the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to operate in Gaza.
Israel has sought to ban UNRWA from Gaza since January 2024, when it alleged without evidence that a small number of staffers at the agency had participated in a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel in October 2023.
Multiple investigations found that Israel had not provided supporting evidence of the allegations, and the ICJ on Wednesday said that the country had “not substantiated its allegations that a significant number of UNRWA employees were members of Hamas.”
With the advisory opinion, said Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, "yet another Israeli government lie—slavishly repeated by Western media—collapses."
ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said in the ruling, which is not legally binding, that Israel's first obligation is to "ensure that the population of the occupied Palestinian territory has the essential supplies of daily life, including food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies, and services."
The court also ordered Israel to "agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes on behalf of the population of the occupied Palestinian territory so long as that population is inadequately supplied, as has been the case in the Gaza Strip."
UNRWA has said it has roughly 6,000 aid trucks that are ready to enter Gaza.
"With huge amounts of food and other lifesaving supplies on standby in Egypt and Jordan, UNRWA has the resources and expertise to immediately scale up the humanitarian response in Gaza and help alleviate the suffering of the civilian population," said Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the agency.
Israel began blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza following the Hamas-led attack in 2023, and intensified the blockade from March-May this year after breaking a ceasefire that began in January. More than 450 Palestinians have starved to death, and experts have warned that the many of the effects of starvation on those who have survived, especially children, may be irreversible. A famine was declared in August by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a UN-backed group.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the ICJ opinion "comes at a moment in which we are doing everything we can to boost our humanitarian aid in Gaza. So the impact of this decision is decisive in order for us to be able to do it to the level that is necessary for the tragic situation in which the people of Gaza still is.”
As it has with numerous other rulings by the ICJ, Israel immediately rejected the decision and claimed it was politically motivated. The US State Department also dismissed the ruling, saying it "unfairly bashe[d] Israel" and repeated the debunked allegations of UNRWA's "deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism."
Step Vaessen of Al Jazeera reported that "even if Israel ignores [the advisory opinion], as it’s done time and time again, all the UN countries are obliged to follow up on this court’s advice."
The ICJ is also considering a genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa.
In September, a commission of independent experts at the UN said Western countries including the US must stop providing military aid to Israel as it found the country was carrying out a genocide in Gaza, citing several of the attacks that have killed more than 68,000 Palestinians since October 2023 and public statements made by Israeli officials demonstrating their intent to wipe out Gaza's population of 2.1 million people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy