SAIL: Our Planet

Next Time Someone Complains about the Heat, Drop This

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 07:00:41 GMT

If you’re hot, bothered and feeling sweaty all the time… it’s not just you.

If you’ve been keeping up with the news: This summer has witnessed some of the most extreme weather events in recorded history.

According to scientists, there is strong evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

So, what exactly does international law say countries have to do about this?

Well, back in 2015, 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement.

It aims to keep global temperatures from rising further and, hopefully, to reduce extreme weather.

More specifically, the goal is to keep the world from getting more than 2°C hotter than before the industrial era, and ideally limit it to 1.5°C.

So under the agreement, every country sets its own personalised plan for fighting climate change and commits to sticking to it.

These plans are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Subscribe now

Countries have to submit their NDCs every five years — first in 2015, then by 2020, 2025, 2030, and so on — but not everyone hits these dates on time, so submissions trickle in rather than landing all at once.

Then, every 5 years, all 195 of them are reviewed together to see if, added up, they’re keeping the world on track with the Paris Agreement’s goals:

This review process is called the Global Stocktake.

(Throwing in some SAIL Art! 😄)

Global Stocktakes are scheduled between NDC cycles (2023, 2028, and so on).

They’re designed to push the next round of NDCs towards greater ambition.

In 2023, the first Global Stocktake report indicated that countries were not on track.

It said global warming was at around 1.1°C – pretty close to the 1.5°C limit.

(And the increasingly extreme weather proves it!)

Plus, in early 2025, almost all countries were late to even submit their updated NDCs on time…!

But on 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (the world’s highest court) clarified in an opinion that countries can’t put whatever they want in an NDC and throw together random promises.

They have to do their homework, use real science, set fair goals, listen to people, and make sure their plan really helps fight climate change.

They also have to be mindful that all NDCs, when taken together, must help keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The court also clarified that countries can be held responsible for not respecting their climate obligations, and even pay reparations for this.

Subscribe now

So what now?

Climate litigation has been on the rise over the past decade.

Across the world, governments and corporations are being taken to court for climate change-related offenses.

And the ICJ opinion just handed everyone a stronger legal basis to do more of it.

We can also expect to see much more of it as temperatures increase.

Stay tuned. And stay cool.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

NASA Just Launched Artemis II: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 05:01:21 GMT

Did you hear? NASA’s Artemis II just launched, sending astronauts around the Moon and back for the first time in more than 50 years.

The mission, Artemis II, is taking its crew farther from Earth than any humans have ever gone!

Beyond rockets and science, it’s also quietly shaped by international law. Here are five things you might not know:

Subscribe now

1. Every rocket belongs to a country

Under international law, rockets don’t belong to NASA or astronauts, but to countries.

So, Artemis II is a U.S. space object, which means the U.S. is responsible for it. (Even though the crew includes a Canadian astronaut!)

If something were to go wrong at any point (e.g., damage on Earth or to aircraft in flight), responsibility would fall on the U.S.

2. Outer Space treaty yes, Moon Treaty no

The U.S. signed the Outer Space Treaty (1967) because it says no country can own space or put nuclear weapons there, but it still lets countries explore and use space freely.

The Moon Treaty, which came later (1979), tried to go further by suggesting the Moon’s resources should be internationally controlled and shared with everyone.

The U.S. never signed it because it worried that would limit future missions.

(Artemis II wouldn’t break it anyway as it’s just orbiting the Moon; it’s not landing, mining, or claiming anything. But the U.S. didn’t want to rule out future missions that might do so!)

3. Competition is allowed (sort of)

Artemis II has been described as America’s best effort to beat China in the race to return humans to the Moon.

And international law actually allows strategic or political competition.

The Outer Space Treaty requires the Moon to be used for peaceful purposes.

But that only means that hostile acts, threats of force, and weapons of mass destruction are banned.

Exploration can be peaceful under the law while still serving national goals.

(Whether that should count as peaceful is a debate space law never really settled… What do you all think? Let me know in the comments!)

Leave a comment

4. No one can own the Moon

The goal of Artemis II is to bring NASA one step closer to landing astronauts on the Moon, currently planned for mid-2027.

But under the Outer Space Treaty, no country can claim the Moon.

Even landing, spending time there, or planting a flag (looking at you, Armstrong) doesn’t create ownership.

5. Environmental rules are lagging

Rockets release emissions directly into the upper atmosphere, where they can affect ozone levels and climate systems, and space missions can leave behind debris (i.e. bits of old spacecraft).

Yet the main international space treaties were written before environmental protection became a global legal priority.

So, there are no clear international rules about environmental harm caused by space launches/missions. There’s a gap.

So even though Artemis II might cause environmental damage, there’s little that environmentalists can do about it.

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might enjoy it too!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

5 Fun International Law Facts about NASA’s next Moon Mission (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:02:18 GMT

In February 2026, NASA is set to send astronauts around the Moon and back for the first time in more than 50 years.

The mission, Artemis II, will take its crew farther from Earth than any humans have ever gone!

Beyond rockets and science, it’s also quietly shaped by international law. Here are five things you might not know:

Subscribe now

Outer Space treaty yes, Moon Treaty no

The U.S. signed the Outer Space Treaty (1967) because it says no country can own space or put nuclear weapons there, but it still lets countries explore and use space freely.

The Moon Treaty, which came later (1979), tried to go further by suggesting the Moon’s resources should be internationally controlled and shared with everyone.

The U.S. never signed it because it worried that would limit future missions.

(Artemis II wouldn’t break it because it’s just orbiting the Moon, not landing or mining, though future missions could.)

The U.S. still has to follow the Outer Space Treaty.

Every rocket belongs to a country

Under international law, rockets don’t belong to NASA or astronauts, but to country launching them.

So, Artemis II is a U.S. space object, which means the U.S. is responsible for it. (Even though the crew includes a Canadian astronaut!)

If something went wrong (e.g., damage on Earth or to aircraft in flight), responsibility would fall on the U.S.

The rules are strict: under the 1972 Liability Convention, the launching country must pay.

No one can own the moon

The goal of Artemis II is to bring NASA one step closer to landing astronauts on the moon, currently planned for mid-2027.

But under the Outer Space Treaty, no country can claim it.

Even landing, spending time there, or planting a flag (looking at you, Armstrong) doesn’t create ownership.

Racing to the moon is technically allowed

Artemis II has been described as the U.S.’s best shot at beating China in the race to return humans to the moon.

And international law actually allows this kind of strategic competition.

The Outer Space Treaty requires the moon to be used for peaceful purposes, but that only bans hostile acts, threats of force, or weapons of mass destruction.

Exploration can still serve national goals.

Whether that truly counts as “peaceful” is debated… what do you think? Let me know in the comments!

Leave a comment

Environmental rules are lagging

Rockets release gases high in the atmosphere that can harm the ozone and climate, and missions leave behind space junk, like bits of old spacecraft.

The main international space treaties were written before environmental protection became a global legal priority.

So there are no clear rules on environmental harm from launches or deep-space missions.

Even if Artemis II causes environmental damage, there’s little anyone can do about it at the moment.

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might enjoy it too!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

The World Just Got a New Treaty for the High Seas. Here’s What It Means (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 09:02:20 GMT

Big news: The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement officially entered into force this month!

This is a major step for international law and protecting the oceans.

But what does it actually mean, and what happens next?

Let’s break it down.

Subscribe now

First things first: what is the BBNJ?

The BBNJ Agreement is a new international treaty that focuses on protecting plants, animals, and ecosystems (in other words, biodiversity) in the high seas.

The high seas are the parts of the ocean that don’t belong to any one country.

They cover nearly two-thirds of the ocean (almost half the planet’s surface!).

Despite their size, these areas have long been poorly protected.

The treaty was adopted in 2023 after nearly 20 years of negotiations.

Why do we need a treaty like this?

A lot of human activity happens on the high seas, and much of it can harm marine life.

These include research, collecting genetic material, tourism, overfishing, and ship pollution.

Until now, there was no global framework to manage these impacts or protect high seas biodiversity.

The BBNJ Agreement is designed to fill that gap.

What does the BBNJ Agreement do?

It focuses on four main areas:

Sharing benefits fairly:
If companies or countries make money or discoveries from marine life on the high seas, they have to share it fairly (especially with developing countries).

Marine protected areas:
It lets countries set up protected zones on the high seas (like ocean national parks!). Important habitats get rules to keep them safe, and countries work together to protect them.

Checking environmental impact:
Countries must check that activities on the high seas won’t seriously harm biodiversity.

Supporting developing countries:
The treaty helps developing nations build skills, access marine technology, and participate fully in high seas governance.

What’s entering into force?

When a treaty enters into force, it becomes legally active.

That means countries are legally bound by it, institutions and procedures under the treaty can be set up, and implementation work can begin. (Woo!)

For the BBNJ, this happened because 60 countries ratified it. Ratification means a country officially approves the treaty at home and agrees to follow it.

In short, the treaty is moving from paper to action.

What’s next?

The next step is putting the treaty into action, guided by a group of countries called the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom). They plan how the treaty will work.

PrepCom has met twice already, and will meet from 23 March to 2 April 2026 to finalise remaining details about how the treaty will work.

Later in 2026, the first Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the main decision-making body, will meet. This will be the moment when the BBNJ truly moves from paper into practice.

Time to SAIL to new heights of ocean protection! (Get it? SAIL? 😄)

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might enjoy it too!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Leave a comment

How to Explain the COP30 Outcomes in 2 minutes

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Thu, 27 Nov 2025 09:00:59 GMT

So, COP30 in Brazil wrapped up last Friday.

These annual UN climate conferences assess global progress under the Paris Agreement and build on previous COP decisions (here’s my 2-minute COP30 explainer!).

After 11 days of negotiations, countries adopted 23 decisions in total, including the flagship Mutirão Decision. Some delivered only modest steps (like on loss and damage and carbon markets), but the real story lies in 5 key outcomes:

Subscribe now

Countries will step up their game

Countries pledged to step up efforts to keep global warming below 1.5°C (i.e., to stop the world from getting more than 1.5°C hotter than before the industrial era) by preparing stronger national climate plans (their five-year “Nationally Determined Contributions,” or NDCs) and actually delivering on them (Mutirão Decision, para 41).

This nicely endorses what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said in its recent climate opinion (which I’ve covered here).

Some key criticisms:

The decisions avoid an explicit commitment to transition away from fossil fuels, despite the ICJ’s warning that states could face liability for producing, using, or financing them (para. 427). Colombia stepped in, announcing it will host a separate fossil fuel conference in April 2026 to keep the issue alive.
They also sidestep any call to reverse deforestation. Climate change is driven largely by these two issues… Sigh.

Countries will triple adaptation finance

The countries most impacted by climate change (e.g., stronger storms, hotter days, rising seas, droughts) need money to adjust and prepare for its effects (by, e.g., building flood barriers, planting tougher crops, improving early warning systems, etc.).

Countries decided to triple that finance by 2035 (Mutirao Decision, para 53).

Some criticisms:

A specific figure wasn’t mentioned
The deadline is 2035 instead of the typical 2030
It’s unclear how much will come from private versus public sources.

Countries will discuss how to balance climate action with fair trade

For the first time, a flagship COP decision explicitly mentions trade measures!

Countries will begin discussions to ensure that their climate actions (like taxes or trade restrictions) are fair and do not create barriers that disproportionately affect poorer countries (Mutirão Decision, para. 56).

Countries work towards a just transition

Countries decided to work towards ensuring that the shift to a greener economy is fair, supporting those who may lose jobs with training and social protection. (But… the decision doesn’t explicitly say they’re transitioning away from fossil fuels. I know.)

Countries will support women in climate action

Despite ongoing disagreements (on, e.g., definitions), countries adopted a new Gender Action Plan to boost women’s leadership and gender-responsive climate action.

Overall assessment?

COPs are slow, chaotic and political, and don’t always deliver everything we hope for. But the science shows that without the Paris Agreement, the world was on track to warm 4-5°C, compared to 2.5-3°C now. Not perfect, but better. And COPs help countries stay on track with the Paris Agreement. (See? International law can work!)

What can we expect next?

More climate litigation, thanks to the ICJ advisory opinion. Also, Brazil plans to roll out roadmaps on deforestation and a just fossil fuel transition next year. And, for better or worse, more COPs! (Stay tuned for the next one in Türkiye, with Australia presiding).

What do you want a simple take on next? Let me know in the comments below!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

I Read 133 Pages of the ICJ Climate Change Opinion So You Don’t Have To. Here Are Its 10 Commandments for Countries (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:01:31 GMT

On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its blockbuster climate opinion — 133 pages (and 457 paragraphs) that boil down to one simple message: countries have to step up their game. Here are the ICJ’s “Ten Commandments,” in plain English.

1. Your obligations go way beyond the Paris Agreement.

The ICJ said countries can’t just shrug and go, ‘Well, we’re trying to follow the Paris Agreement, so we’re good!’ Climate obligations come from all sorts of other places too: environmental agreements, human rights rules, other climate agreements, the law of the sea, principles, and more. In short, there’s a lot more relevant law to respect out there than some countries like to admit!

2. Even if you didn’t ratify the agreements, you’re still bound.

Countries that haven’t ratified the written agreements (basically, finished the formal steps to make it legally binding in their own system) can’t just say, ‘Well, I don’t have any climate obligations.’

Some climate obligations (like to prevent significant harm to the environment, or to cooperate) don’t even come from written agreements — they come from long-standing, consistent state practice (aka, custom). And customary rules bind everyone, treaty or no treaty (looking at you, USA…).

3. You must exercise real due diligence.

Countries must take serious, science-based steps to avoid making climate change worse — by, e.g., assessing risks before possibly harming the environment, adopting serious climate plans, and acting even when science isn’t perfectly certain.

4. Your climate plans must actually be ambitious.

Under the Paris Agreement, every country sets its own plan for fighting climate change (called ‘Nationally Determined Contributions/NDCs’) – and commits to sticking to it, updating it every 5 years.

Countries don’t get to set weak climate plans. NDCs must reflect due diligence (see #3 above), be ambitious and must collectively align with the 1.5°C goal (see #7 below).

5. You must cooperate internationally.

Climate change is a collective problem. Countries must share information, work together, and coordinate climate action in good faith.

6. Don’t let private actors do the dirty work for you.

Countries must stop companies from doing things that weaken global climate efforts.

7. Stop talking about 2°C.

The Paris Agreement wants to keep the world from getting more than 2°C hotter than before the industrial era, and ideally limit it to 1.5°C.

But the ICJ says that now, the world really needs to stay under 1.5°C. This is no longer the ideal but the main goal. Anything more than that isn’t an option.

8. Yes, you can be held accountable.

If countries don’t follow these (many!) climate obligations, they can be held responsible.

9. You can’t just keep producing fossil fuels like nothing is happening.

Countries can be held responsible for producing or using fossil fuels, giving permission to look for more, or giving financial support for fossil fuels.

10. “Everyone else is doing it” is not a defence.

Even if many countries are polluting, each country can still be held responsible. Scientists can measure how much pollution each country causes. So there.

……….

Which one surprised you the most? Comment below!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

How to Make Sense of COP30 in Brazil (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 06:00:00 GMT

Hey SAILers!
COP30 will take place from Monday, 10 November to Friday, 21 November.

What does “COP” mean?
COP stands for Conference of the Parties. The “Parties” are the 193 countries and the European Union (194 in total) that signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 — the first global climate agreement.

What does the UNFCCC do?
The UNFCCC aims to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and tackle climate change. It created the COP meetings so countries can meet every year to review progress and plan future action.

Who attends COPs?
COPs attract wide attention: World leaders, government negotiators, public figures like Prince William, scientists, Indigenous leaders, youth activists, journalists and even lobbyists (!) are there. Trump just announced that a U.S. delegation won’t be there, though.

What is the Paris Agreement?
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, builds on the UNFCCC. It sets out a clearer and more specific plan than the UNFCCC for how each country should work to reduce its emissions. (The U.S. announced plans to withdraw from it earlier this year.) So, at COP meetings, countries focus on turning the Paris Agreement’s goals into real action.

What comes out of COP meetings?
Once or twice, the outcomes of COPs have been major international agreements, like the Paris Agreement at COP21 (2015). But more often, COPs produce decisions that steer everyone in the right direction. E.g., a COP27 (2022) decision created a fund to help countries hit hardest by climate disasters, and a COP28 (2023) decision was the first to name fossil fuels as the main cause of the climate crisis.

What will they discuss at COP30?

Key hot topics include:

How can we raise $1.3 trillion from public and private sources to help developing countries?
How can we help every country become stronger and adapt to climate change?
How can we move away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy?

Why does COP30 matter?

It’s the 30th COP and the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement.
UNFCCC officials say we’re off track to keep the earth’s temperature under 1.5°C by 2030.
Recent decisions by international courts worldwide (here, here and here) are increasing pressure on countries to increase their efforts — and will likely shape debates at COP30.

Let’s see what happens! I’ll probably write another blog post to discuss the outcomes.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Subscribe now