This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Vice President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Justice Julia Sebutinde.[Photo/monitor.co.ug]
The Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK (AOHR UK) has written to the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), calling for the removal of Ugandan Judge Julia Sebutinde, Vice-President of the Court. The letter pointed out that Sebutinde had breached Articles 2 and 18 of the Court’s Statute when she openly revealed her ideological bias in favour of Israel, despite the ongoing genocide being committed against the Palestinian people in Gaza and across the occupied Palestinian territories.
Article 2 of the Court’s Statute obliges judges to display integrity, impartiality, and independence. Should any of these conditions be breached, Article 18 provides that the judge concerned must be removed with the consent of the other Members of the Court.
The AOHR UK added that Judge Sebutinde has not only abandoned impartiality and integrity but has also expressed messianic religious ideas that encourage the perpetuation of the crime of genocide, which has already claimed tens of thousands of victims, the majority of whom are women, children, and the elderly.
The AOHR UK explained that on 10 August 2025, during a speech delivered in a church in Uganda, Judge Sebutinde openly declared her religious support for the actions of the occupying power, stating:
“The Lord relies on me to stand with Israel… signs of the end times are appearing in the Middle East, and I want to be on the right side of history… I am convinced that time is running out, and I encourage you to follow developments in Israel. I feel humbled that God has allowed me to be part of the last days.”
The rights group emphasised that such statements were not surprising. It recalled that when the Court ordered provisional measures in the Gaza genocide case, and later issued its Advisory Opinion on 19 July 2024 regarding the nature of the Israeli occupation, Judge Sebutinde was the only judge to oppose all measures, including the facilitation of humanitarian aid. Her lengthy dissenting opinion to the Advisory Opinion clearly revealed her religious convictions and her absolute support for the occupation, denying—through biblical lens—the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion, AOHR UK noted, relied heavily on biblical narratives and stories granting Israel fictitious rights, thereby conferring false legitimacy on the horrific crimes committed against Palestinian civilians. “Such reasoning not only contradicts the foundations of international law but also emboldens the continuation of genocide, undermining the very principles upon which the Court’s authority rests;” the letter read.
AOHR UK pointed out that Judge Sebutinde’s expressed views “mirror the rhetoric of Israeli leaders such as Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich, who for over 22 months of killing, destruction, starvation, and displacement have invoked biblical and Talmudic narratives to justify crimes and spur on the military in pursuit of the “Greater Israel” project, as Netanyahu recently articulated.”
Relatedly, the AOHR UK urged states, scholars, thinkers, lawyers, and legal practitioners worldwide to press the judges of the ICJ to remove Judge Sebutinde, in order to safeguard the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the Court—particularly in light of overwhelming evidence that Israel considers itself a state above the law, emboldened by the colonial support of the West led by the United States.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.Vote Labour for Genocide.
An ExxonMobil oil refinery is pictured in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Photo: Barry Lewis/InPictures via Getty Images)
“We cannot trust fossil fuel corporations to do anything but line the pockets of their CEOs and investors at the cost of our climate and communities,” one campaigner said.
The eight largest U.S. and Europe-based oil and gas producing companies are failing to align their plans with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and avoiding ever more catastrophic climate impacts.
Oil Change International’s Big Oil Reality Check report, released Tuesday, concludes that the plans of BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies would actually put the world on track for more than 2.4°C of warming and burn through nearly one-third of the global carbon budget for hitting the 1.5°C target.
“It’s clearer than ever that oil and gas companies—the climate arsonists fueling climate chaos—cannot be trusted to put out the fire,” David Tong, report author and global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. “There is no evidence that big oil and gas companies are acting seriously to be part of the energy transition.”
“The Big Oil Reality Check report reveals that oil and gas corporations are more interested in looking like they are acting on climate change than actually acting on climate change.”
For its fourth annual Big Oil Reality Check, Oil Change International judged the oil companies’ climate plans and pledges against a set of minimum standards for alignment with the Paris agreement. The standards were divided into three main categories: ambition, integrity, and people-centered transitions.
Under ambition, the companies were assessed on whether they had plans to stop oil and gas exploration, stop approving new extraction projects, decrease production every year through 2030, and stop extraction on a certain date while outlining a long-term plan to end production.
Under integrity, the companies were assessed on whether their emissions-reduction plans included their entire supply chain, whether they relied on carbon capture or offsets, whether their methane-reduction plans were really in line with climate goals, and whether they lobbied or advertised against climate action.
For people-centered transitions, they were assessed on whether they had just transition plans for employees and members of frontline communities and whether they respected human rights overall and the rights of Indigenous peoples, including to free, prior, or informed consent to any fossil fuel activities.
The companies were then rated from “fully aligned” to “grossly insufficient” for how well their plans complied with the Paris goals within the assessment’s framework, but all eight companies scored “insufficient” or “grossly insufficient” for a majority of the criteria.
Only one company—Eni—scored above “insufficient” in any category, earning a ranking of “partially aligned” for having greenhouse gas-reduction plans that included its supply chains. The three U.S.-based companies—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil—scored “grossly insufficient” for all 10 criteria.
Big Oil & Gas companies spend a lot of time and effort on public relations. We're here with a dose of reality.
— Oil Change International (@PriceofOil) May 21, 2024
“American fossil fuel corporations are the worst of the worst,” Oil Change International’s U.S. program manager Allie Rosenbluth said. “Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips perpetuate harm in frontline communities not only across the U.S. but worldwide.”
Oil Change found that six out of the eight companies have official plans to increase oil and gas production. The only two that did not were BP and Shell; however, these companies employ a misleading strategy. They compensate for new oil and gas projects by selling off polluting assets. While the emissions from the sold operations no longer count toward company emissions, they still count toward the planet’s total. This practice is out of line with the GHG Protocol on corporate emissions accounting and may violate the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Four of the companies assessed in the report—BP, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron—were also the subject of a recent U.S. House investigation and Senate hearing detailing how the fossil fuel industry playbook has shifted from outright denial of climate science to greenwashing its activities by presenting itself as part of the solution to the climate crisis while its day-to-day operations continue to raise global temperatures.
“The efforts of climate and social movements have forced oil and gas companies to acknowledge that fossil fuels are dirty and dangerous, leading to a variety of climate pledges and ‘plans,'” said Oil Change campaigner Myriam Douo. “The Big Oil Reality Check report reveals that oil and gas corporations are more interested in looking like they are acting on climate change than actually acting on climate change.”
“They spend billions on smoke and mirrors to try to fool us into believing they have solutions for a livable planet when, in reality, they are perpetuating harm to the climate and local communities while trying to suck every last ounce of profit out of their dirty fossil fuel business,” Douo concluded.
All told, Rystand energy data suggests that the combined production of the eight companies will be 17% by 2030 than they were last year.
“Such an increase in production on a global scale would put the world on a path towards global heating well beyond 2°C, locking in destruction of vulnerable communities and ecosystems,” the report authors wrote.
The report finds that all of the companies intend to rely on unproven carbon capture technology or offsets schemes to meet their claimed emission-reduction goals and have continued to spend money on lobbying against climate action and greenwashing their own activities since the agreement in Paris.
Further, no company has plans consistent with ensuring a just transition or protecting human rights. In one recent and urgent example, ExxonMobil, Chevron, TotalEnergies, BP, Shell, and Eni all continue to provide Israel with crude oil despite “the Israeli military’s ongoing assault on Palestinian civilians, ecosystems, and infrastructure in Gaza and mounting evidence of war crimes,” a March Oil Change investigation found.
The report comes nearly half a year after world leaders agreed to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” at the COP28 U.N. climate change conference in Dubai. In light of its conclusions, Oil Change called on governments to take action to further a just transition:
Stop permitting or approving new fossil fuel projects or infrastructure;
Set a Paris-aligned date for phasing out fossil fuel production;
End subsidies and financing for fossil fuels and false solutions like carbon capture;
Use tax policy to incentivize against investing in fossil fuels;
Craft a just transition, including by making polluters pay for cleanup and reparations; and
Passing laws to protect human rights and Indigenous rights and giving communities a legal mechanism to seek redress from corporate polluters.
Oil Change also argued that governments in the Global North should hold companies headquartered within their borders accountable for harm abroad and put money into funds to enable the Global South to transition to renewable energy, adapt to climate change, and pay for inevitable loss and damage.
“This year’s Big Oil Reality Check makes it clearer than ever—we cannot trust fossil fuel corporations to do anything but line the pockets of their CEOs and investors at the cost of our climate and communities,” Rosenbluth said. “People around the world are rising up to end the era of fossil fuels and build a just energy system that puts climate and communities first.”
