Dr Diana Warner's Additional Statement
URN 01MP0239521; 01MP0239721
D Warner additional skeleton argument for hearing now to take place 14.08.25.
The three arguments outlined above for the case that we cannot have a fair trial have been vindicated by
A. Two motions passed at the British Medical Association Annual Representatives meeting, previously supplied. (Motions passed 25 June, Day 2)
B. The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on States’ climate change obligations, 23.07.25
related case 187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
NDC = Nationally determined contributions
GHG = greenhouse gases
The Advisory Opinion (AO) confirms that climate change caused mainly by fossil fuels is an existential threat and that all States share an obligation to keep global heating below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. It cites existing international law and treaties, including human rights law, the 2015 Paris Agreement and subsequent Conferences of the Parties UN Climate Conference to declare that the obligation to keep below 1.5 exists now and no State is exempt.
AO para 245: ‘..parties are obliged to exercise due
diligence and ensure that their NDCs fulfil their obligations under the Paris
Agreement and thus, when taken together, are capable of achieving the
temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial
levels, as well as the overall objective of the “stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
In fact, the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5C limit in 2024 (copernicus.eu report) and 2025 is expected to be the second warmest on record despite the end of the 2023-4 El Nino event (carbonbrief.org). Therefore the UK must enter a period of rapid reduction of fossil fuel use to zero and increased carbon sequestration if we are to keep within international legal obligations.
'The judges concluded that states are required under
international laws to reduce emissions, prevent harm, and collaborate to
safeguard vulnerable populations. They also stressed that these obligations
encompass the full range of activities resulting in greenhouse gas emissions,
from fossil fuel usage to extraction, subsidies and regulatory oversight.'
ICJ
Advisory Opinion
AO Para. 281: ‘The Court recalls that due diligence requires a State to “use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its territory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State” (Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 56, para. 101). This means that States must “put in place a national system, including legislation, administrative procedures and an enforcement mechanism necessary to regulate the activities in question, and . . . exercise adequate vigilance to make such a system function efficiently, with a view to achieving the intended objective” (Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, ITLOS Reports 2024, p. 89, para. 235).
282: ‘As far as climate change is concerned, such appropriate rules and measures include, but are not limited to, regulatory mitigation mechanisms that are designed to achieve the deep, rapid, and sustained reductions of GHG emissions that are necessary for the prevention of significant harm to the climate system. Adaptation measures reduce the risk of significant harm occurring and are therefore also relevant for assessing whether a State is fulfilling its customary obligations with due diligence. These rules and measures must regulate the conduct of public and private operators within the States’ jurisdiction or control and be accompanied by effective enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to ensure their implementation.’
409: ‘With regard to obligations under customary international law, the Court observes that the most significant primary obligation for States in relation to climate change is the obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment (see paragraphs 132-139 above), which applies to all States, including those that are not parties to one or more of the climate change treaties. Under this obligation, as well as under other obligations of conduct identified under question (a), a State does not incur responsibility simply because the desired result is not achieved; rather, responsibility is incurred if the State fails to take all measures which were within its power to prevent the significant harm. In this connection, the notion of due diligence, which calls for an assessment in concreto, is the relevant standard for determining compliance (see paragraph 137 above). Thus, a State that does not exercise due diligence in the performance of its primary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment, including to the climate system, commits an internationally wrongful act entailing its responsibility.’ (My italics)
420: ‘Therefore, the Court concludes that responsibility for breaches of obligations under the climate change treaties, and in relation to the loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.’
The UK has very large historic greenhouse gas emissions and large present emissions. The government is allowing and subsidising further fossil fuel extraction and is seeking to allow new oil fields such as the large Rosebank oil field off Shetland (Everything you need to know about Rosebank).
The actions taken by us as environmental protesters were taken in response to the UK government committing what are now fully acknowledged to be internationally wrongful acts, as recognised in the ICJ Advisory Opinion. The existing laws and treaties the Advisory Opinion cites were agreed before autumn 2021 when Insulate Britain took to the roads.
Paragraph 456 of the Advisory Opinion states that a solution requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. The UK law courts must play their part, as must the medical profession.
The field of medicine is a fourth key contributor of knowledge,
as shown in my bundle of evidence and earlier evidence supplied to court.
Doctors need to inform government, politicians, and the public, of health
dangers; what it means to be guided by the precautionary principle; and the
profession itself needs to adapt to ways of practising medicine without the use
of fossil fuels or, if allowable, ways that involve very low fossil fuel usage
at a level which does not contravene the UK’s obligations in regards to climate
change. This is what I have been trying to show the GMC with increasing urgency
since 2019 as doctors require GMC involvement in order to facilitate change.
The lack of action on the part of GMC and government had given us no
option but to take nonviolent direct action to emphasise that mitigating and
adaptive action must be taken by state authorities. Insulating British homes
will result in significant and essential contributions to both mitigation and
adaptation. The evidence that nonviolent action does work is evident in various
movements such as those undertaken by the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King,
Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.
The Advisory Opinion (paragraph 456) goes on to say that above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual, social and political levels. This is precisely what I and my fellow defendants have been advocating for and embodying through the actions we have taken that eventually led to our participation in nonviolent direct action as part of the Insulate Britain protests.
AO Para 456: ‘the questions posed by the General Assembly represent more
than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary
proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our
planet. International law, whose authority has been invoked by the
General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in
resolving this problem. A complete solution to this daunting, and
self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human
knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. Above all, a
lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the
individual, social and political levels — to change our habits, comforts
and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and
those who are yet to come. Through this Opinion, the Court participates
in the activities of the United Nations and the international community
represented in that body, with the hope that its conclusions will allow
the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the
ongoing climate crisis.’
187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
The ICJ Advisory Opinion is clear. It needs to be assimilated into UK courts at all levels. Individual judges have the opportunity to set this in motion. A just result today will consider this carefully.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge.
Dr Diana Warner