16 June 2026
UK newspapers responded to a major climate ruling by the world's top court by claiming "lawfare" and linking the decision to the UK's proposed handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a new review of global media coverage has found.
The Telegraph quoted Conservative politician Priti Patel describing the ruling as part of the same "process of lawfare that led to the Chagos surrender." The paper also quoted Reform UK's Richard Tice calling the Chagos handover something the ICJ had "absurdly" called for, going on to say of the Court "they just hate us."
The Daily Mail ran with the headline "UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change," questioning whether the UK could be liable for reparations based on emissions dating back to the Industrial Revolution. The Sun took a similar reparations angle, with a headline describing the ruling as "bonkers" and warning it "may allow countries to sue each other for climate reparations."
Coverage of how 25 UK and global newspapers reported on the July 2025 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world's top court, which outlined what countries must legally do about climate change, was reviewed by Professor Chris Hilson, climate law expert at the University of Reading.
Professor Chris Hilson said: "Crying 'lawfare' is a way of framing the Court's decision as politically driven rather than legally grounded, which fits a pattern we saw across several right-wing papers. At the same time, other coverage focused on the tears and joy of the young people who helped bring the case to court. How a story gets told can shape how people end up feeling about climate change and the law, so these different framings really matter. Legal-only coverage risks losing readers, while pairing the law with the human stories behind it could help bring rulings like this to life and let readers form their own view."
Personal stories sparse in climate coverage
The findings are due to be published in a chapter of a new book entitled ‘The Advisory Opinions on Climate Change’.
The review of newspaper coverage spanning the UK, USA, China, India and several Pacific island nations, found:
Some newspapers stuck closely to the legal details, explaining the obligations the Court said countries now have.
Left-leaning papers tended to focus on ideas of fairness, often describing the ruling as a win for climate justice and a way of holding big polluting countries to account.
Right-leaning UK papers took a different angle, focusing on what the ruling could mean for Britain, including the chance of being sued over its historic emissions. A few right-wing papers also dismissed the ruling itself, with words like "bonkers" and "mad" used to describe it.
Few newspapers tried to bring the story to life through personal stories. Some exceptions interviewed young people from Vanuatu and Tonga who had helped start the legal case, describing how emotional they felt watching the judges deliver their decision.
There were also surprises in how some countries covered the ruling. Chinese newspapers, for example, focused on the human rights side of the decision, something not often associated with Chinese state media.
Professor Chris Hilson is available for interview. Contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk.
We are in the process of finalising our postgraduate taught courses for 2027/28 entry. In the meantime, you can view our 2026/27 courses.
