Africa

A view of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Peace Palace in The Hague. Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Bee

By Daniel D. Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

African sovereign debtors in distress face terrible choices. They are often forced to choose between fully paying their creditors and financing the needs of their populations – health, education, renewable energy, water.

Discussions with their creditors focus on financial, economic and contractual issues. The environmental and social impacts of their situation are largely excluded from negotiations.

Thanks to the initiative of some Vanuatan law students, this may be about to change.

Vanuatu is a country consisting of small islands in the south Pacific. It has been ranked as one of the countries most affected by climate change, facing threats of rising sea levels and storm surges. In 2019, a law professor in Vanuatu, Justin Rose, asked his students to propose ways to deal with the climate threat confronting their country.

They suggested that Vanuatu ask the United Nations general assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the international legal obligations of states regarding climate change. They convinced their government to adopt their proposal. They also mobilised international support, saying they wanted to take the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court.

In 2023, the UN general assembly agreed to seek the International Court of Justice’s advice on the following two issues: the obligations of states under international law to protect the environment from the impact of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and
the legal consequences for states if they fail to meet these obligations and thereby cause significant environmental harm for present and future generations.

The case attracted unprecedented attention. The court received over 150 written submissions. Over 100 states and international organisations made oral presentations in nine days of public hearings. On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous advisory opinion. It was only the fifth time in its nearly 80-year history to do so.

The court’s opinion was that the obligations of states extend beyond the treaties they have signed and ratified. They also include obligations arising from customary international law. This is the law that states practise out of a sense of legal obligation. It is binding on all states and international organisations, regardless of whether they have signed any applicable treaty.

The rules that matter

The court declared that there are two relevant customary international legal obligations.

The first is a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment. This requires states to exercise due diligence before acting in ways that could cause environmental damage. They must assess both the probability of causing serious harm and the likely extent of any expected impacts.

In making these assessments, states must take into account current binding and non-binding international standards. It also requires states to ensure that companies and individuals subject to their jurisdiction comply with these duties.

The second is a duty to cooperate with other states to protect the environment and to help solve international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature. Here, the court opined that a healthy environment is a pre-condition for the enjoyment of human rights. It affects the rights to life, health and livelihoods, and the rights of children, women and indigenous people.

The court, in discussing the second issue, advised that states can be held legally responsible if they do not take all measures within their power to prevent significant environmental harm. It noted that while all states have this duty, its precise contents will vary depending on their capabilities. The critical factor is the effort the states make and not the results they produce.

The debt angle

Although the court’s opinion is only advisory, it is likely to be highly influential. It was informed by a wide range of submissions. It was a unanimous decision of 15 judges who come from 15 countries.

The fact that the court grounded its decision, in part, on customary international environmental and human rights grounds means that it has implications for any state actions that can have significant adverse impacts on climate, the environment and customary human rights.

My work as an international lawyer working on sovereign debt and development finance convinces me that this includes the renegotiation or restructuring of African debt.

Whatever action African sovereign debtors take to deal with their debt crisis will affect their ability to manage their greenhouse gas emissions. It will also affect their ability to deliver on their obligations to their citizens’ rights. These include the rights to life, health and livelihoods.

This suggests that African sovereign debtors and their creditors need to understand the environmental and climate impacts of their transactions.

They must also work together to resolve their transactions’ negative environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts. Their respective responsibilities will differ depending on their capabilities.

The International Court of Justice opinion may therefore offer new opportunities to make debtor and creditor states, and creditor institutions, accept responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of their actions.

Three possible avenues for relief

There could be at least three ways to relate the climate opinion to debt.

First, the debtor and its stakeholders can use the decision to bolster their arguments for including the environmental and social impacts of debt in their negotiations. They can point out that the debtor state cannot avoid international legal responsibility for the effects of the transaction on its greenhouse gas emissions and on the human rights of its citizens.

They can also point out that its creditors and their home states also have a legal obligation to assess these impacts and cooperate in managing them.

Second, the stakeholders can remind both the sovereign debtor and its creditors about the content of their international legal responsibilities. There are international norms and standards that can help establish that content.

Some of them are:

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
the UNCTAD Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Borrowing and Lending
the UN Global Compact
the OECD Principles of Responsible Conduct for Multinational Enterprises
the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework.

In addition, there are many private financial institutions that have human rights and environmental and social policies that often specifically refer to these international standards.

Third, drawing inspiration from the Vanuatu law students, activists around the world can use the judgment to strengthen their arguments. They can say that creditor and debtor states have an international legal duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and to cooperate to protect the environment. This duty extends to ensuring that companies and individuals subject to their jurisdiction act in conformity with these duties. They can be held legally responsible for failing to comply with these duties.

Finally, there are international mechanisms that non-state actors can use to hold debtors and creditors accountable for failing to perform their duties. These include the National Contact Points. These exist in each state that has signed on to the OECD Principles of Responsible Conduct for Multinational Enterprises. Another possibility is the independent accountability mechanisms in the multilateral development banks.

There are also the courts in the growing number of states in which governments, central banks and private actors have been sued for violating their obligations to climate change.

States and financial institutions, of course, can avoid these consequences by respecting the court’s opinion and developing ways of managing African sovereign debt that comply with its international legal advice.

Daniel D. Bradlow is a professor at the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa. danny.bradlow@up.ac.za

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By CIVICUS
Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses civil society’s challenges in engaging with United Nations (UN) processes with an activist from a Salvadoran queer-led organisation who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.

The UN recently held its annual High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) to review progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). El Salvador proclaimed the country’s ‘comprehensive transformation’ under President Nayib Bukele’s increasingly autocratic rule. But the Bukele government is attacking civic space, and its domestic repression extends internationally, with civil society facing serious barriers and potential reprisals when engaging with UN processes.

What challenges did you face participating in the 2025 HLPF?

Our participation was made extremely difficult. It was only thanks to the support of international allies that we were able to prepare a civil society response to the state’s Voluntary National Review and attend the forum. Once there, the barriers to reading the civil society statement were significant. We made numerous behind-the-scenes efforts before the Women’s Major Group generously offered to read our statement on our behalf.

Being the only Salvadoran civil society representative in the room, I was forced to give up my speaking space and rely on the solidarity of others. Despite feeling deep companionship and mutual care among civil society, it remained a profoundly painful experience. Not being able to read a statement that had been built collectively and carefully through anonymous consultations felt like erasure: of our presence, our voices and our right to speak truth in global spaces.

Potential reprisals were another major concern. During the HLPF, we closely monitored the situation back home, as just months prior, El Salvador had taken further steps towards full authoritarianism. The arrest of Ruth López, a high-profile human rights lawyer, caused widespread concern. Most Salvadoran organisations dropped out of the UN process afterwards, leaving our organisation as the only one present in New York.

Even after Ruth’s arrest caused international outrage, human rights defenders continued to be targeted. The government wasn’t deterred by the possibility of international scrutiny. Further, the cases of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, deported from the USA by the Trump administration and imprisoned in a maximum-security detention centre, and Venezuelan detainees who experienced torture under custody in El Salvador, illustrate that threats of arrest, torture and death are real risks.

Is this problem widespread beyond El Salvador?

These attacks are not unique to El Salvador: civil society leaders from countries including Guatemala and Nigeria also faced threats during the HLPF. One organisation’s office was raided during the forum. This confirms that the UN remains one of the few spaces where civil society can speak truth to power, which is why repressive governments are willing to go to great lengths to suppress their voices.

However, even if not everybody faces the same level of repression, there was a shared sense that the space for civil society engagement at the UN is also narrowing. This has serious implications. When fear of retaliation shapes who speaks and how, the credibility of the UN as a platform for civil society suffers. It fundamentally changes who is able and willing to speak out. Who will take the mic at the UN when doing so might cost them their freedom?

What needs to change?

The UN needs stronger protection mechanisms for human rights defenders who engage in these spaces. When we reached out to UN officials in Geneva and New York, their support was unfortunately limited. It was civil society, not official UN mechanisms, that stepped in to activate protection networks, establish contacts and contribute to tracking possible reprisals.

The narrowing space for civil society engagement at the UN must be addressed. This has become particularly visible in the planning process for the UN80 initiative – an efficiency drive to mark the UN’s 80th anniversary – which, instead of being a moment of celebration, is increasingly seen as a push for further exclusion.

I deeply hope CIVICUS and other allied networks will continue to push for stronger protection mechanisms and public responses when defenders are under attack for daring to engage in these spaces.

El Salvador is currently on the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which tracks countries experiencing a serious decline in respect for civic freedoms.

SEE ALSO
SDGs: accountability under threat CIVICUS Lens 11.Aug.2025
Defending the defenders: civil society’s struggle for global space and voice CIVICUS Lens 28.Jul.2025
Key highlights: CIVICUS at 59th Session of the UN Human Rights Council CIVICUS 23.Jul.2025

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The Leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, arrived at UN Headquarters by helicopter. A view of the helicopter as it approached the North Lawn of the UN campus on 13 November 1974. But Arafat was denied a US visa for a second visit to the UN in 1988. Credit: UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

When Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was denied a US visa to visit New York to address the United Nations back in 1988– under the Ronald Reagan administration– the General Assembly defied the United States by temporarily moving the UN’s highest policy making body to Geneva– for the first time in UN history– providing a less-hostile political environment for the PLO leader.

Arafat, who first addressed the UN in 1974, took a swipe at Washington when he prefaced his statement in Geneva by pointing out that “it never occurred to me that my second meeting with this honorable Assembly, would take place in the hospitable city of Geneva”.

And now, 37 years later, there is a campaign to once again temporarily move the General Assembly sessions to Geneva to provide a platform for Palestinian delegates who are being denied visas to enter the US.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director DAWN, a nonprofit organization that seeks to reform U.S. policy in the Middle East, told IPS: “It’s clear that the US is trying to deter any discussion about the genocide in Gaza and Palestinian statehood by revoking the visas of Palestinian officials”.

But it’s also pretty clear, “that the world is fed up with the savage Israeli atrocities we are witnessing every day, so we very much hope they will act promptly to move the General Assembly meeting to Geneva just as they did the last time the US pulled such a stunt,” said Whitson, a former director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.

Moving the meeting to Geneva, she argued, will send a message to the Trump administration that the international community does not tolerate these breaches of long-standing law requiring access to all UN representatives.

In a statement released last week, DAWN said the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement requires the United States to provide unfettered access to UN proceedings for all representatives, regardless of bilateral disputes.

Section 11 establishes an “unrestricted right” for officials to enter the U.S. for UN business, while Section 12 states these provisions apply “irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments” and the U.S.

This is not the first time the United States has violated its obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement. In 1988, the U.S. denied a visa to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to attend the UN General Assembly session, DAWN said.

The UN responded by adopting a resolution concluding that Washington had violated its obligations under the 1947 Agreement and, as a rebuke, moved its General Assembly meeting from New York to Geneva to allow the Palestinian leader to speak.

Asked for his comments, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations, at Seton Hall University, told IPS: “In a very real sense, the call to move the meeting is to be expected.”

The Trump administration delights in pursuing policies without regard to the opinions of other countries, so it’s no accident that America First is becoming America Alone, he said.

If countries who have proposed Palestinian recognition follow through, the US will be the only P-5 country on the Security Council yet to do so.

The recent countries that have proposed Palestinian recognition are doing so to shape the Israeli conduct of the Gaza War.

“It makes every bit of sense to use the threat of moving the meeting to Geneva in the very same way. And this points to a second lesson that this White House has yet to learn: when you push on the rest of the world, it can and will push back”, declared Edwards.

Andreas Bummel, executive director, Democracy Without Borders told IPS: the host agreement is clear. It is not up to the host country to decide who may or may not enter the halls of the United Nations.

As a permanent observer state, Palestine has every right to send representatives. If the General Assembly or other UN bodies find they are hindered from functioning properly in New York, it would be reasonable for them to consider convening elsewhere, said Bummel.

Asked about the denial of visas, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters August 29: “We are going to discuss this with the State Department. I mean, the Headquarters Agreement deserves to be read – notably, I think, sections 11 and 12.”

“We obviously hope that this will be resolved. It is important that all Member States, permanent observers, be able to be represented – especially, I think in this case, as we know, with the upcoming two-state solution meeting that France and Saudi Arabia will host at the beginning of the GA”

“We would like to see all diplomats and delegates who are entitled to come here to be able to travel freely”, he said.

Meanwhile, a State Department Press Release, August 29, says “in accordance with U.S. law, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly.”

“The Trump Administration has been clear: it is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace.”

“Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism — including the October 7 massacre — and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by U.S. law and as promised by the PLO.

The PA must also end its attempts to bypass negotiations through international lawfare campaigns, including appeals to the ICC and ICJ, and efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state. Both steps materially contributed to Hamas’s refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks.”

The PA Mission to the UN will receive waivers per the UN Headquarters Agreement, the State Department said. The United States remains open to re-engagement that is consistent with our laws, should the PA/PLO meet their obligations and demonstrably take concrete steps to return to a constructive path of compromise and peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel.

So far, the State of Palestine has been recognized as a sovereign nation state by 147 of the 193 member states, or just over 76% of all UN members. It has been “a non-member observer state” of the UN General Assembly since November 2012.

Meanwhile Western countries, who are US allies – including UK, France, Australia and Canada– have announced plans to recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation state during the General Assembly sessions in mid-September.

Palestine, which was never afforded the status of a full-fledged UN member state pulled off a coup when the 134-member Group of 77, the largest single economic coalition at the UN, elected Palestine as its chairman, back in 2018, much against US protests.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former UN assistant secretary-general (ASG) told IPS since the US does not have a veto power in the General Assembly (GA) –unlike the Security Council—a GA resolution could be effortlessly adopted – perhaps a resolution sponsored by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Carolyne Odour's two young sons went missing with their father - a follower of self-proclaimed pastor Paul Mackenzie.

Carolyne Odour's two young sons went missing with their father - a follower of self-proclaimed pastor Paul Mackenzie.

South Africa are through to their first Women's World Cup quarter-final thanks to a thrilling 29-24 win over Italy in Pool D.

Eleven members of the prison service and a police officer were among the fatalities.

Chelsea revoke permission for Nicolas Jackson to complete a loan move to Bayern Munich after an injury to fellow striker Liam Delap.

The train had been travelling from Marsa Matruh to the Egyptian capital Cairo when it came off the tracks.

Actress Nandi Nyembe's final months were marked by money problems that threatened to overshadow her career.

Actress Nandi Nyembe's final months were marked by money problems that threatened to overshadow her career.

The earthen berm is intended to trap people inside el-Fasher, Yale University research shows.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

Dilshan Madushanka takes a hat-trick in the final over of the match to ensure Sri Lanka beat Zimbabwe by seven runs in the first one-day international in Zimbabwe.

Middlesbrough complete the signing of Lausanne-Sport forward Kaly Sene on a four-year contract.

Survivors saved off Mauritania say they left The Gambia with 160 people on board.

Investigations have been launched following the footage posted to Instagram - which has since been deleted.

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Credit: IAEA
 
The IAEA applies safeguards to verify states are honouring their international legal obligations to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes only.

By Kelsey Davenport
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The decision early this week by the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) to initiate the process to snap back UN sanctions on Iran that were modified as part of the 2015 nuclear deal must be paired with an effective diplomatic strategy that restarts talks between the United States and Iran.

If the E3 and the United States fail to prioritize pragmatic diplomacy in the coming weeks and provide assurance that there will be no further military attacks while bilateral talks proceed, they risk pushing Tehran closer to nuclear weapons and putting the region back on a path to war.

Under the so-called snapback process outlined in Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, the Security Council now has 30 days to pass a resolution continuing the UN sanctions relief.

If such a resolution does not pass, there will be an automatic reimposition of the UN sanctions and nuclear restrictions—including a prohibition on uranium enrichment—contained in resolutions passed by the Security Council between 2006 and 2010 as part of the global pressure campaign that contributed to the negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Iran has threatened to respond to the snapping back of UN measures, including by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)—a step that would put the United States and Iran back on a path to conflict.

To avert this crisis, the Trump administration must take advantage of the 30-day window before snapback is finalized to reach an interim agreement with Iran that stabilizes the current crisis and extends the option to snapback UN sanctions.

Such an arrangement would reduce the risk of further conflict and create the time and space for the complex negotiations that will be necessary to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal.

In any interim agreement, the Trump administration must prioritize the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s announcement that inspectors returned to Iran and Tehran’s decision to allow inspectors access to the Bushehr site is a positive step, but it is imperative that Iran meets its legal obligations by allowing the full resumption of IAEA safeguards inspections at all sites and cooperating with IAEA efforts to account for Iran’s stockpiles of nuclear materials, particularly the uranium enriched to 60 percent.

An interim deal should also take into account Iran’s legitimate concerns about further illegal attacks on its nuclear facilities and scientists by solidifying the ceasefire that ended the 12-day war between Israel, Iran, and the United States and recognizing Iran’s NPT right to a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA safeguards.

An agreement along these lines would be insufficient to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, but it would be a positive step that de-escalates tensions and creates time for further diplomacy to reduce Iran’s proliferation risk in the long term.

Failure to use the 30-day window to reach an agreement that staves off snapback risks putting the United States, Israel, and Iran back on the path to conflict and could drive Tehran to follow through on its threat to withdraw from the NPT, a step that increases the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran and weakens the treaty.

Despite President Donald Trump’s claims that the U.S. and Israeli military strikes set Iran’s program back by years, military action is incapable of addressing Iran’s proliferation threat. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away, and Tehran still possesses nuclear capabilities and material that pose an urgent proliferation threat.

And now some of those materials, including Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade levels, remain accounted for and unmonitored. It is highly likely that Iran retains the capabilities and materials to quickly return to the threshold of nuclear weapons or weaponize if the decision were made to do so.

If Trump fails to seize this moment, he risks dragging the United States back into a military conflict with Iran, weakening the NPT, and driving Tehran closer to the bomb. It is in neither the interest of Tehran nor Washington to miss this window of opportunity to pursue a lasting diplomatic solution that verifiably blocks Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons and provides Iran with benefits in return.

The Arms Control Association is an independent, nongovernmental, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the providing authoritative information and practical solutions to eliminate the threats posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Nonproliferation Policy, and is a leading expert on nuclear and missile programs in Iran and North Korea and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');