1 00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:05,640 Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh, 2 00:00:05,800 --> 00:00:06,840 Speaker 1: now it makes sense. 3 00:00:14,720 --> 00:00:17,360 Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday, 4 00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:19,680 Speaker 2: the twenty fifth of July. I'm Lucy Tassel. 5 00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:22,240 Speaker 1: I'm belief that Simon's the World. 6 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,599 Speaker 2: Court has handed down a landmark decision finding countries could 7 00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:29,280 Speaker 2: be required to pay compensation to other nations affected by 8 00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:32,800 Speaker 2: their climate harms. It's the result of a historic case 9 00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:36,120 Speaker 2: initiated by a group of law students from Pacific island 10 00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:40,400 Speaker 2: nations which face risks from rising seas. In today's episode, 11 00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:42,800 Speaker 2: we'll explain the lead up to this decision, what the 12 00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:45,680 Speaker 2: World Court is, and what it might mean for countries 13 00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:46,400 Speaker 2: around the world. 14 00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:49,400 Speaker 1: Before we get into today's deep dive, here is a 15 00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:56,040 Speaker 1: quick message from our sponsor. So, Lucy, there is so 16 00:00:56,240 --> 00:00:59,000 Speaker 1: much to unpack here. Yeah, but I want to start 17 00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:02,880 Speaker 1: by explaining the World Court is. So, it's officially called 18 00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:06,000 Speaker 1: the International Court of Justice. Yeah, for anyone who's not 19 00:01:06,040 --> 00:01:07,520 Speaker 1: familiar with it, what is it? 20 00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:11,160 Speaker 2: Yeah? So, the ICJ is it's one of the main 21 00:01:11,319 --> 00:01:14,120 Speaker 2: bodies of the United Nations, you know how like we 22 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:17,080 Speaker 2: think of the United Nations as having agencies. It also 23 00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:19,920 Speaker 2: has the General Assembly which is if you ever did 24 00:01:19,959 --> 00:01:22,320 Speaker 2: model UN that's where that's what you're mimicking. 25 00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:22,720 Speaker 1: YEP. 26 00:01:22,880 --> 00:01:25,920 Speaker 2: One of its bodies is the ICJ. It's also known 27 00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:29,600 Speaker 2: as the World Court. As I said, it basically decides 28 00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:33,880 Speaker 2: on disputes between two different countries that can come to 29 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:36,920 Speaker 2: it with an issue. It can also decide on legal 30 00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:39,720 Speaker 2: issues brought to it by the UN, so the UN 31 00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:42,920 Speaker 2: General Assembly can vote and say, we need a resolution 32 00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,080 Speaker 2: on this kind of legal issue that might not necessarily 33 00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:50,000 Speaker 2: be between two opposing countries. We need advice. It has 34 00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:53,480 Speaker 2: fifteen judges and it hands down its decisions in the 35 00:01:53,520 --> 00:01:57,400 Speaker 2: Hague in the Netherlands. Its rulings are typically binding, but 36 00:01:57,680 --> 00:01:59,920 Speaker 2: it's hard to enforce them, as it is with their 37 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,640 Speaker 2: any kind of dispute between two nations. And then I 38 00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:06,440 Speaker 2: should also say it's different to the ic C or 39 00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:10,160 Speaker 2: the International Criminal Court, so that court oversees trials of 40 00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:14,320 Speaker 2: individuals who are accused of crimes against civilians during wars, 41 00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:19,160 Speaker 2: things like genocide, torture, sexual violence, and it steps in 42 00:02:19,200 --> 00:02:23,680 Speaker 2: when those individuals countries are quote unable or unwilling to 43 00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,119 Speaker 2: take them to trial. So you've got the World Court, 44 00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:29,240 Speaker 2: which is between countries or deciding on issues that affect 45 00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:32,160 Speaker 2: the whole world. And then you've got the icc which 46 00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:35,520 Speaker 2: is about people. Got it, And we're talking about the 47 00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:38,880 Speaker 2: ic JA. Like you said, that's called the World Court 48 00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:43,320 Speaker 2: and it's basically considered the world's top court. Yes, and 49 00:02:43,360 --> 00:02:45,840 Speaker 2: so the reason we're talking about it today is because 50 00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:50,280 Speaker 2: they have handed down this big decision on countries climate responsibilities. 51 00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:51,960 Speaker 2: How did this case. 52 00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 1: Come to the court in the first place. 53 00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:56,080 Speaker 2: Well, I think it has really interesting origins. So it 54 00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,520 Speaker 2: starts in twenty nineteen with a group of law students 55 00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:02,640 Speaker 2: at the US University of the South Pacific. They started 56 00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:07,400 Speaker 2: a campaign called Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change or oh, 57 00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:12,000 Speaker 2: that's actually not a good acronym, PISFCC. Never mind, Pacific 58 00:03:12,000 --> 00:03:14,760 Speaker 2: Island Students Fighting Climate Change. We'll just say the students 59 00:03:14,760 --> 00:03:18,080 Speaker 2: for clarity. Their aim was to have the ICJ hand 60 00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:22,560 Speaker 2: down a legal opinion about countries climate change obligations, which 61 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:25,520 Speaker 2: has now succeeded all these years down the line. So 62 00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:28,160 Speaker 2: these students are from some of the countries that are 63 00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:31,640 Speaker 2: facing an immediate risk from climate change impacts? Would they 64 00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:36,080 Speaker 2: particularly rising sea levels? We can understand kind of intellectually 65 00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,640 Speaker 2: what happens when the sea rises and you live on 66 00:03:38,720 --> 00:03:43,600 Speaker 2: a small island. In August twenty twenty two, Vanawatu brought 67 00:03:43,640 --> 00:03:46,600 Speaker 2: the student's campaign to a meeting of leaders of Pacific 68 00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:50,800 Speaker 2: countries that includes Australia, and those countries' leaders agreed to 69 00:03:50,800 --> 00:03:54,920 Speaker 2: take the student's request to the UN. In twenty twenty three, 70 00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:58,480 Speaker 2: the UN General Assembly voted on this being taken to 71 00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:02,560 Speaker 2: the ICJ's there's a lot of procedural steps and the 72 00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,800 Speaker 2: UN agreed this should be sent to the ICJ to consider. 73 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:09,520 Speaker 2: So it's Vanowatu bringing it on the student's behalf because 74 00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:11,880 Speaker 2: as I said, it's the World Court, like a country 75 00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:14,360 Speaker 2: has to be involved. But then it ends up being 76 00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 2: this kind of legal decision function of the court rather 77 00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:21,640 Speaker 2: than a court case, although as I'll explain, we could 78 00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:23,159 Speaker 2: see a court case in the future. 79 00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:26,040 Speaker 1: Right, it's quite a cool story that this all came 80 00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:30,480 Speaker 1: from university students and that the UN took them so seriously. 81 00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:33,360 Speaker 2: It's maybe the most successful group project of all time. 82 00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:36,320 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's a great way to look at it. 83 00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:40,320 Speaker 1: And so then what were they asking the ICJ to consider. 84 00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:43,320 Speaker 2: It's all wrapped up in a lot of legal ease, 85 00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:45,400 Speaker 2: and so I think it can be boiled down to 86 00:04:45,440 --> 00:04:49,120 Speaker 2: two main questions. The first question is what does international 87 00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:52,920 Speaker 2: law require countries to do to protect the environment from 88 00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:56,480 Speaker 2: human caused climate change? Human caused climate change is also 89 00:04:56,520 --> 00:05:00,279 Speaker 2: sometimes called anthropogenic. And then the second question and is 90 00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:04,359 Speaker 2: if countries are found to have caused significant harm to 91 00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:09,520 Speaker 2: the climate system, negatively impacting particularly small island nations and 92 00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:13,240 Speaker 2: also future generations, what should the consequences be. I mean, 93 00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:15,840 Speaker 2: you can't send a country to jail, so what can 94 00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:17,880 Speaker 2: we say should be the consequence. 95 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:22,119 Speaker 1: I'm always fascinated by this area of international law because, 96 00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:23,920 Speaker 1: as you kind of touched on at the start, it's 97 00:05:23,920 --> 00:05:27,240 Speaker 1: really hard to enforce that because the world doesn't have 98 00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:30,880 Speaker 1: one global set of legislation that we all agree on. 99 00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:33,719 Speaker 1: What we do have, though, in this space, is the 100 00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:37,200 Speaker 1: Paris Agreement. So when we talk about international law when 101 00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:39,520 Speaker 1: it comes to climate change, is that what we're talking about? 102 00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:40,359 Speaker 1: The Paris Agreement. 103 00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:42,039 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a big part of it. It's not the 104 00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:43,440 Speaker 2: only one, but I would say it's kind of the 105 00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:46,120 Speaker 2: big boy. It's the main piece of climate kind of. 106 00:05:46,400 --> 00:05:48,520 Speaker 2: It's a binding agreement, is what I should say. So 107 00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:52,000 Speaker 2: it's legally binding, and countries that are party to it 108 00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:55,080 Speaker 2: so they've signed it, they agree to abide by its terms, 109 00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:59,320 Speaker 2: have a requirement to limit their carbon emissions and their pollution. 110 00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:03,080 Speaker 2: They have committed to cutting their emissions with the intention 111 00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:07,360 Speaker 2: of limiting global average temperature increases to one point five 112 00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:11,400 Speaker 2: degrees celsius above the levels that they were at before 113 00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:15,440 Speaker 2: the Industrial Revolution, the cause of all the things that 114 00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,239 Speaker 2: go into the atmosphere. I will say, if you're party 115 00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:20,840 Speaker 2: to the agreement, it's legally binding. You don't have to 116 00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:23,680 Speaker 2: continue being a party to the agreement. As we've seen 117 00:06:23,880 --> 00:06:27,960 Speaker 2: with the Trump administration twice over has pulled the US 118 00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,039 Speaker 2: out of the Paris Agreement. So the US enters under 119 00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:34,920 Speaker 2: Obama is pulled out under Trump, re enters under Biden, 120 00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,640 Speaker 2: is now being re pulled out again by Trump. So 121 00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,240 Speaker 2: countries reserve the right to back out of it if 122 00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:43,920 Speaker 2: they don't want to abide by its terms. And I mean, 123 00:06:44,360 --> 00:06:45,680 Speaker 2: I guess we'll wait and see. 124 00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:48,200 Speaker 1: Okay, So we have those two questions that were put 125 00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:51,240 Speaker 1: to the ICJ. I want to remind listeners of the 126 00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:54,240 Speaker 1: first one. It was what does international law require countries 127 00:06:54,240 --> 00:06:58,240 Speaker 1: to do to protect the environment from human caused climate change? 128 00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:00,840 Speaker 1: Now that we have the ruling, yeah, how did they 129 00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:01,719 Speaker 1: answer that question? 130 00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,800 Speaker 2: So the first one, basically, the court summarized all those 131 00:07:05,839 --> 00:07:09,159 Speaker 2: bits of international law covering the climate as I've just done, 132 00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:14,280 Speaker 2: such as the Paris Agreement. It reiterated countries have responsibilities 133 00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:18,240 Speaker 2: under these agreements, and specifically it said when a country 134 00:07:18,280 --> 00:07:21,960 Speaker 2: fails to quote take appropriate action to protect the climate 135 00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,600 Speaker 2: system from greenhouse gas emissions, it may constitute an internationally 136 00:07:26,640 --> 00:07:30,600 Speaker 2: wrongful act, which is attributable to that state. When they 137 00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:33,160 Speaker 2: say state, they mean country. And then there are two 138 00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:36,280 Speaker 2: clarifications from that point. Again, I mean I mentioned for 139 00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:38,720 Speaker 2: a lot of legal ease, and I'm just talking about 140 00:07:38,720 --> 00:07:42,920 Speaker 2: the summary document over hundreds of pages of the full decision. 141 00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,640 Speaker 2: So basically that means that when we talk about greenhouse 142 00:07:46,680 --> 00:07:49,880 Speaker 2: gas emissions, they're talking about things emitted from producing and 143 00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:53,880 Speaker 2: consuming fossil fuels like oil. They also said this could 144 00:07:53,920 --> 00:07:58,840 Speaker 2: be attributed to giving companies licenses to create new fossil 145 00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:02,160 Speaker 2: fuel projects. And then the second thing they said, which 146 00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:05,400 Speaker 2: I thought was interesting, was that the court said producing 147 00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:08,960 Speaker 2: greenhouse gases is not in itself illegal, but failing to 148 00:08:09,080 --> 00:08:13,320 Speaker 2: keep those emissions below a certain threshold very much is illegal. 149 00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:17,480 Speaker 2: So again they're just reiterating stop doing things that could 150 00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:23,679 Speaker 2: negatively impact the environment without a counterbalance, given your obligations 151 00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:27,480 Speaker 2: under these international legal agreements like the Paris Agreement. 152 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:30,120 Speaker 1: So essentially what they're saying in relation to that first 153 00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:34,160 Speaker 1: question is that countries are indeed legally liable for their 154 00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:35,920 Speaker 1: contribution to climate change. 155 00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:38,959 Speaker 2: Yes, and just outlining a few of the ways that 156 00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:43,440 Speaker 2: that can be the case. Basically just unlimited greenhouse gas 157 00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:47,600 Speaker 2: emissions with no limitations. That's illegal and you can be 158 00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:48,360 Speaker 2: held liable. 159 00:08:48,640 --> 00:08:51,680 Speaker 1: And interesting that they're also including the private sector. Yes, 160 00:08:51,920 --> 00:08:54,480 Speaker 1: so they're responsible for everything that happens in your country. 161 00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:57,959 Speaker 2: That was the most interesting part of this to me, definitely. Yeah. 162 00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:00,760 Speaker 1: And then in terms of the second question, so remind 163 00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:03,040 Speaker 1: of what that question was, it said, if countries are 164 00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:06,239 Speaker 1: found to have caused significant harm to the climate system, 165 00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:10,360 Speaker 1: negatively impacting small island nations and future generations, what should 166 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:11,320 Speaker 1: the consequences be? 167 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:11,920 Speaker 2: Yeah? 168 00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:13,000 Speaker 1: What was their answer to that? 169 00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:16,000 Speaker 2: So they found that countries have a duty to comply 170 00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:19,280 Speaker 2: with these obligations, and that as part of that duty, 171 00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:22,840 Speaker 2: they can be asked to pay compensation to other countries 172 00:09:22,880 --> 00:09:27,280 Speaker 2: that are harmed directly by their failure to prevent excessive emissions. 173 00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:30,760 Speaker 2: The legal version is that countries can be made to 174 00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:35,120 Speaker 2: pay if quote, a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus 175 00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:38,440 Speaker 2: can be shown between the wrongful act and injury. So 176 00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:41,000 Speaker 2: basically saying, if you can draw a straight line cause 177 00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:48,120 Speaker 2: and effect. Let's say, for example, hypothetically Australia Australia launches 178 00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:52,200 Speaker 2: a huge gas drilling project and scientists can prove that 179 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:57,559 Speaker 2: this project directly causes seatwaters to rise around Vadawatu, then 180 00:09:57,559 --> 00:10:00,960 Speaker 2: Australia would be held legally liable and could pay compensation 181 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:05,200 Speaker 2: to Vanawatu for the effects of that project as a hypothetical. 182 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:06,520 Speaker 1: Yes, so interesting. 183 00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:10,040 Speaker 2: Yeah, and they also need to commit to not doing 184 00:10:10,040 --> 00:10:13,360 Speaker 2: it again countries that are found guilty of this, And 185 00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:17,000 Speaker 2: as I said before, countries must regulate the emissions produced 186 00:10:17,040 --> 00:10:20,440 Speaker 2: by privately owned companies within their countries. So let's say 187 00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,679 Speaker 2: it's not Australia that launches the big gas drilling project. 188 00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:27,400 Speaker 2: But let's say again hypothetically, if Woodside Energy were to 189 00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:30,679 Speaker 2: launch a new gas drilling project and the same process 190 00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:33,800 Speaker 2: played out, then Australia could have to pay compensation. 191 00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:37,360 Speaker 1: This idea about a duty of care is not new. 192 00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:39,240 Speaker 1: I feel like over the past five years or so, 193 00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,440 Speaker 1: we've heard so much about it. Yeah, and it's a 194 00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:45,560 Speaker 1: topic that's come up here in Australia in our courts. 195 00:10:45,640 --> 00:10:49,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, so Yeah, Australia has kind of wrangled legally with 196 00:10:49,559 --> 00:10:52,240 Speaker 2: this idea of a duty of care over citizens, which 197 00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,480 Speaker 2: I think is related to this idea of a duty 198 00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:59,040 Speaker 2: to comply with your obligations under international law. So, in fact, 199 00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:02,160 Speaker 2: last week, the Federal Court ruled the government does not 200 00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:05,000 Speaker 2: have a duty of care over to Torres Strait Islander 201 00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:09,920 Speaker 2: traditional owners Uncle Pabi Pabi and Uncle Paul Kabi, and 202 00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,680 Speaker 2: also their communities in order to protect them from climate change. 203 00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:16,800 Speaker 2: In his judgment, Justice Michael Wigney said there are no 204 00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:20,760 Speaker 2: legal remedies for climate harms caused as a result of 205 00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:24,400 Speaker 2: high level policies, which is interestingly kind of one of 206 00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:28,160 Speaker 2: the things that this ICJ ruling is setting out to address. 207 00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:31,800 Speaker 2: Justice Wigney said he was bound by a previous Federal 208 00:11:31,840 --> 00:11:35,400 Speaker 2: Court decision in twenty twenty two, which had in itself 209 00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:39,240 Speaker 2: overturned a ruling that found the government had a duty 210 00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:42,520 Speaker 2: of care to young Australians to consider the long term 211 00:11:42,559 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 2: impacts of fossil fuel projects. So there was a decision 212 00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:49,600 Speaker 2: in the young people's favor and then it was overturned 213 00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:52,520 Speaker 2: by the Federal Court, and that overturning is what Justice 214 00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:55,079 Speaker 2: Weekney said he was bound by when he ruled against 215 00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:58,360 Speaker 2: the Torres Strait islander. Men. But I will be very 216 00:11:58,360 --> 00:12:03,880 Speaker 2: interested to see what comes from this ICJ ruling if 217 00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:07,360 Speaker 2: a future case could possibly have more success. 218 00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:11,400 Speaker 1: It's so complex when you have different courts kind of 219 00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:15,360 Speaker 1: finding very different things that actually kind of contradict each other. 220 00:12:15,559 --> 00:12:16,600 Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. 221 00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:20,840 Speaker 1: And last question you mentioned earlier about whether or not 222 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:24,280 Speaker 1: this is actually legally enforceable, because it's one thing for 223 00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,320 Speaker 1: it to be I guess legally binding, but it's another 224 00:12:27,360 --> 00:12:29,120 Speaker 1: thing for it to be enforceable. 225 00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:32,800 Speaker 2: Yeah, what does that look like here? So my understanding 226 00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:36,800 Speaker 2: is that this ruling by the ICJ was the second 227 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:39,160 Speaker 2: thing that they can do, so not a mediation between 228 00:12:39,160 --> 00:12:43,000 Speaker 2: two states, but to say, we've answered this legal question 229 00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:47,280 Speaker 2: from you, so this is our opinion. So their decision 230 00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:49,640 Speaker 2: in and of itself is not there's not like a law. 231 00:12:49,720 --> 00:12:53,920 Speaker 2: There's not really a legal precedent in that sense. I see. However, 232 00:12:54,800 --> 00:12:58,440 Speaker 2: what they have said is that countries have a responsibility 233 00:12:58,520 --> 00:13:02,240 Speaker 2: under existing international law to not break the rules. 234 00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:02,880 Speaker 1: Got it? 235 00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:05,360 Speaker 2: So their decision in and of itself is not a 236 00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:09,160 Speaker 2: legally binding thing, but it has the consequence of holding 237 00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:12,600 Speaker 2: countries to legally binding obligations. 238 00:13:12,240 --> 00:13:14,680 Speaker 1: Got it. So it kind of lays the path down 239 00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:17,440 Speaker 1: for if a country did want to see another country 240 00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:21,240 Speaker 1: for their contribution to climate change, which they say has 241 00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:24,920 Speaker 1: directly impacted them. Yeah, this decision kind of lays the 242 00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:26,920 Speaker 1: path for that to now happen. 243 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:30,840 Speaker 2: Well, I've not trained as a barrister at the Justice, 244 00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:32,080 Speaker 2: but that is my understanding. 245 00:13:32,320 --> 00:13:34,640 Speaker 1: Well, you have not trained as a barrisster, but you 246 00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:39,400 Speaker 1: explained that expertly. So thanks Leasie, Thank you so much, 247 00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:41,800 Speaker 1: Thanks Billy, and thank you so much for listening to 248 00:13:41,880 --> 00:13:44,400 Speaker 1: this episode of The Daily Os. We'll be back this 249 00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:47,640 Speaker 1: afternoon with your evening headlines, but until then, have a 250 00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:52,200 Speaker 1: great day. 251 00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:54,760 Speaker 2: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda 252 00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:59,760 Speaker 2: Bunjelung Chalcultin woman from Gadigal country. The Daily Os acknowledges 253 00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:02,000 Speaker 2: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the 254 00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:05,680 Speaker 2: Gadigal people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest 255 00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:08,560 Speaker 2: Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the 256 00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:11,360 Speaker 2: first peoples of these countries both past and present.