内容摘要：by Declassified UK showing the role played by the British base at RAF Akrotiri on the island of Cyprus. The British have been running surveillance flights over Gaza since early December 2023, supposedly to facilitate the rescue of Israeli captives.

by Declassified UK showing the role played by the British base at RAF Akrotiri on the island of Cyprus. The British have been running surveillance flights over Gaza since early December 2023, supposedly to facilitate the rescue of Israeli captives.

But the judge in the case ruled that companies “may be obligated to take preventive measures” to counter their emissions, according to a statement from the court.“If the polluter definitively refuses to do so, it could be determined, even before actual costs are incurred, that the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions,” the court concluded.

The ruling supported arguments made by Saul Luciano Lliuya, who claimed that RWE should pay towards the cost of protecting his hometown near the city of Huaraz in northern Peru from a lake glacier swollen by melting snow and ice.RWE has never operated in Peru, but the 44-year-old farmer argued that, as one of the world’s top emitters of carbon dioxide, the firm was partly responsible for the flood risk.The court, however, rejected Lliuya’s claim against RWE, saying that there was “no concrete danger to his property” from a potential flood.

The ruling was nonetheless a “milestone” for climate litigation, Lliuya’s lawyer Roda Verheyen said in a statement.“This is an extraordinary case,” said Al Jazeera’s Step Vaessen, reporting from Hamm, Germany. “For the first time, a person from the Global South is filing a legal case against a company from the Global North, holding it responsible, accountable for global warming and effects of it” on their home country.

Presenting data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historical emissions from chief fossil fuel producers, Lliuya said RWE, Germany’s largest energy company, is responsible for nearly 0.5 percent of global man-made emissions since the industrial revolution and must pay a proportional share of the costs needed to adapt to climate change.

For a $3.5m flood defence project needed in his region, RWE’s share would be about $17,500, according to Lliuya’s calculations.Across the world, the global student body has a rich history of activism. From anti-apartheid solidarity campaigns to the student protests that sparked Myanmar’s 1988 uprising, young people have long stood at the front lines of struggles against repression. Today’s generation – often described as the most socially conscious and globally connected in history – is no different.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to universities that their human rights performance is a hot topic for the young people they serve.

In the corporate world, businesses are now routinely judged on their human rights records. Terms like “ethical sourcing,” “responsible investment,” and “human rights due diligence” are standard parts of doing business. Universities, which pride themselves on being forward-thinking and socially responsible, should be held to no lower standard. The fact that many have no policy at all on overseas human rights risks is indefensible.It’s time for that to change.

Torture survivors seeking safety in the UK should not have to worry that the nation’s educational institutions are offering training to the security forces of the very regimes they fled. Universities should be able to provide reassurance to anyone expressing real concern, whether that is those with lived experience of the most terrible abuses of power, or their own students.In order to do this the university sector must get its house in order. This starts with adopting transparent human rights policies across the sector and undertaking effective due diligence to manage risks to human rights. Failure to take these necessary steps leaves the sector at risk of contributing, however unintentionally, to global human rights violations.