✨Are you a #LAGMag subscriber?

📝Sign up for exclusive access to 𝗶𝗻-𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 & 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀.

💫Subscribe today & get 14 issues for the price of 12!
swiy.co/12for10_25

Thanks to our @gardencourtlaw.bsky.social contributors Alex Grigg, Abigail Holt, Acland Bryant, Liam McKenna and Marc Willers KC (@marcwillerskc.bsky.social).

#ClimateJusticeHeroes 👏👏👏
#EnvironmentalLaw
#ClimateJustice
#LAGMag

27/ 🌡️With regard to the temperature threshold relevant for today's ruling, the Court affirms, building on science and COP decisions, that the 1.5c temperature target must be understood as the internationally agreed objective of climate policies!

25/ Through this clear statement, the Court puts to rest - hopefully once and for all - the bad faith legal argument used by polluters to claim that the climate agreements protect them from accountability for climate harms.
🪦R.I.P. Lex Specialis argument in climate justice cases

14/ 🎇 On the sources of law considered for this ruling, the Court emphasizes that it has considered the entire corpus of international law as requested by the UNGA resolution. This is an important announcement! Let me explain...

13/ 🗺️Regarding the territorial scope of its analysis: the court points to the fact that the 🇺🇳UNGA did not impose territorial limits to the inquiry and stresses that GHG emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.

12/ On the material scope of this legal inquiry, the court affirms that it will address the full range of human activities that contribute to climate change as a result of the emission of GHGs including both consumption and production activities. - this is promising!

10/ 🔥Judge Iwasawa Yuji quotes straight from the IPCC: "Warming of 1.5°C is not considered 'safe' for most nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors, and poses significant risks to natural and human systems." - this is a very strong basis for the Court's legal conclusions!