International Court Ruling Shows Clear Need for a Global EPA
August 11, 2025
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Popular pages:

Nations need to straighten up and fly right

The International Court of Justice announced it decision on nations obligations to protect the environment, including from global warming, on July 23, 2025. The opinion backing the decision was some 140 pages long. My brief summary the opinion can be found at International Court Ruling on the Environment. This essay will analyse the opinion with particular regard to need for a powerful Global Environmental Protection Agency to implement its basic findings.

The Court found that international law obliges all nations to prevent harm to the environment, protect it from greenhouse gas emissions, and uphold other environmental treaties on ozone, biological diversity, and desertification, and human rights to a healthy earth. Further, it found that nations (called states in the opinion) who do not comply with its findings are legally bound to comply (by stopping their harmful actions) and by making reparations to states injured by their illegal actions.

Which is great, if you are a citizen of earth. Human, animal, or plant. But it raises the issue: how can the Court, or court system, enforce this general finding? And what, really, are the rules in detail? The Court is specific in saying that if a nation signed an environmental agreement, like the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, it must abide by that agreement. But what of nations that did not sign, or withdraw, or say we don't recognize the authority of the Court?

Examples make the problem clear. For instance the Paris Agreement is said to be a legally binding international treaty. In the United States, when a treaty is approved under our Constitution, it becomes part of our law. But President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2020. Under President Biden, the U.S. rejoined. Under Trump, the U.S. is again withdrawing in 2025. So the reality is there is no enforcement mechanism. It is not just a powerful nation like the United States that can ignore these agreements and any ruling of the International Court. It is, right now, any nation. Iran, for instance, did not ratify the agreement.

Any nation can stay in the agreements, but fail to enforce them internally. Again, the United States is an example. The Trump administration has ordered its EPA to stop enforcing many of the environmental laws passed by Congress, or regulations written in the past under the authority of Congress. It is specifically reversing regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, including of coal power plants. It has even declared that gasoline powered cars will no longer be required to show improving fuel economy. It has used its power to stop solar and wind power projects.

Which, of course, could prove to be a problem with a Global EPA. Suppose such an EPA ruled that only electric cars may be manufactured, a very sensible rule. Suppose the U.S. government says no to that. What would be the enforcement mechanism? Not war, which the rest of the world would likely lose, especially since other petroleum producing nations would ally with the U.S. Economic sanctions might work, but might take a long time to work. We may be in a Slow-Motion Apocalypse, but we don't have that kind of time to set things right.

The only workable scenario is that the U.S. sign a treaty agreeing that Global EPA regulations are enforceable by U.S. courts and law enforcement agencies. That would require getting rid of Trump, his cronies, the power of the petroleum industry, and their allies. It would likely be the same in Russia, the oil states of the Arabian Peninsula, and nations with giant coal deposits like Australia and Brazil.

While I would certainly cheer on a revolution from below, the most likely path is the establishment of a GEPA by the United Nations. The first step towards this would be abolishing the veto powers of the Security Council. A truly democratic U.N. would want to fight global warming and overrule the suicidal tendencies of the oil powers. The Democratic Party in the United States should make it part of its platform for the U.S. to give up its veto power (along with the other nations that have that power).

Well, I too could go on for 140 pages, showing the scope of the problem and providing possible answers at multiple levels. Instead, I would encourage you to read at least my summary (like above) of the Court ruling, and preferably the ruling itself (skimming allowed!).

Discuss the need for an effective Global Environmental Protection Agency with your friends and allies. If you are a Democratic Party activist, introduce a resolution for the U.S. to give up its U.N. veto power. There will soon be multiple places for activists to join in the discussion, but so far the only one I can point you to is a Facebook page: Global Environmental Protection Agency discussion group.

Thanks for your attention.