Last week’s advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice could potentially trigger a wave of climate lawsuits against the United Kingdom, leaving the nation vulnerable to demands for trillions of pounds in reparations for historical emissions. Although Vanuatu’s climate minister celebrated this as a victory for the “Global South”, it is another move in a complex game of geopolitical guilt-tripping, cleverly exploiting Western unease about its history to gain a strategic advantage. The deeper issue here is Britain’s seeming inability to resist a global order increasingly structured around punishment and self-deprecation rather than cooperation.
Since the end of World War II, Western elites, understandably shaken by the horrors of fascism, embraced a new moral order. Pre-war norms, such as national pride, national confidence, and a sense of boundedness, were no longer seen as virtues but somewhat outdated throwbacks that carried within them the underlying danger of nationalism. Linked to this was the notion that Western prosperity was something to be ashamed of. A historical narrative was promulgated that mistakenly links prosperity with colonial exploitation and historical wrongdoing rather than industrial innovation and property rights.
To institutionalise this post-war moral order, a network of global institutions was designed to chip away at national autonomy and shift decision-making power to distant, unelected bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, the UN, or the ICJ. In this way, forms of governance would supersede the nation-state, ostensibly to pacify the logic of interstate conflict, but in reality to insulate new supranational elites from the grubby need to win democratic consent for this process of transformation. The nation-state became little more than a conveyor belt for the edicts and rulings of these innovative forms of global governance.
To facilitate this technocratic transformation, a strategy of moralism helped put opponents on the back foot. To question this new regime was no longer a matter of political context, but a moral transgression. The latest proclamation on climate reparations fit neatly into this narrative, converting historical guilt over slavery and colonialism into a never-ending debt owed for climate-related harm. The recent ICJ ruling is merely the latest attempt at this form of Western moral disarmament to achieve “restorative justice”.
This dynamic of self-criticism is nowhere more evident than in Keir Starmer’s Labour government, which dutifully cleaves to this supranational order. Labour’s foreign policy, dubbed “progressive realism”, has arguably prioritised symbolic adherence to global institutions rather than concrete British interests. The recent decision to surrender the Chagos Islands, following the ICJ’s recommendations, is a striking example of this trend. Attorney General Lord Hermer’s involvement in this decision symbolises an elite mindset comfortable with surrendering aspects of national sovereignty to appease international opinion. The risk now is that Labour’s stance on climate reparations becomes just another expensive gesture, funded by British taxpayers already struggling with high taxes and mounting debt.
These tensions reflect something more profound: the ideological exhaustion of a twentieth-century liberal order, focused on diluting national identities in favour of technocratic governance
Yet this outward commitment to global moral norms shows signs of strain. Increasingly, many voters perceive the realities of mass immigration as placing unfair burdens on British communities, outweighing the supposed benefits touted by political elites. Meanwhile, the apparent hypocrisy of politicians frequently jetting around while advocating net-zero austerity for ordinary citizens has only inflamed widespread resentment. These tensions reflect something more profound: the ideological exhaustion of a twentieth-century liberal order, focused on diluting national identities in favour of technocratic governance, which is distanced from democratic accountability.
It seems vital now that Britain resists being drawn further into this cycle of perpetual self-reproach. Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution is often seen as a source of regret, but in reality, it was a catalyst that helped unlock unprecedented global prosperity. Britain’s decisive role in abolishing slavery, which involved significant sacrifices in both lives and resources, is a historical achievement worthy of genuine pride. British naval vessels actively freed hundreds of thousands of enslaved people, helping eradicate one of humanity’s greatest injustices. Even today, our foreign aid stands in marked contrast to the exploitative debt practices employed by some of our global rivals.
Ultimately, the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion, fortunately not legally binding, ought to be firmly rejected. The current Labour government faces a stark choice: continue yielding to an institutionalised culture of guilt, risking further national decline, or rediscover pride in Britain’s substantial, positive historical legacy.
