logo
Climate Change: ICJ Ruling Is A Landmark Win For Children

Climate Change: ICJ Ruling Is A Landmark Win For Children

Scoop23-07-2025
The historic climate change ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today is a landmark win for child campaigners, acknowledging the adverse impacts of climate change on child rights, and offering children renewed hope, Save the Children said.
The Advisory Opinion delivered by the world's highest court finds that states' legal obligations to address climate change extend beyond existing climate agreements. It also found that "states must take their obligations under international human rights law into account when implementing their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties."
While not legally binding, leading environmental lawyers say the ruling "could become a guiding star for climate policies at all levels of governance", including how States are held accountable under multiple areas of international law.
The Advisory Opinion originated from an extensive campaign led by a group of law students from the Pacific Islands, with strong support from the Republic of Vanuatu [1].
In December last year, Vepaiamele, 16, a child campaigner with Save the Children Vanuatu, travelled to The Hague with the Government of Vanuatu - the only child to attend as part of a government delegation - to speak about the impacts of climate change on the Pacific island nation and call for action.
Vepaiamele said today: "This Advisory Opinion is everything I hoped for and I am so happy with this outcome as I know it will pave the way for a safer future for youth like myself and future generations, too."
Speaking from The Hague last year, Vepaiamele said:
"As a young Ni-Vanuatu girl, I feel the effects of climate change every day of every year. I've experienced many cyclones. It can be kind of terrifying sometimes, especially the really strong ones. Every cyclone, our classrooms are destroyed, our homes are flattened to the ground, and hospitals and communication towers are ripped apart. And then there's also the mental health impacts, and we don't really talk about it that much, but it can really cause anxiety in children and young people."
Human-induced climate change is driving up global temperatures, with the past 10 years the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Children, particularly those affected by inequality and discrimination, bear the brunt of climate change impacts that are already forcing them from their homes, putting food out of reach, damaging schools and increasing risks like child marriage as they are forced out of education and into poverty.
Limiting warming temperatures through the rapid phase-out of the use and subsidy of fossil fuels is critical for children's rights and lives, Save the Children said.
Earlier this year, research released by the child rights organisation with the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) found that the difference between global temperature rise of 1.5°C and 2.7°C could see 38 million more children from the 2020 birth cohort face unprecedented lifetime exposure to extreme heatwaves. [2] Save the Children also called for increased climate finance targeted at helping children and their families, child-centred and locally led adaptation and an increase in the participation of children in shaping climate action.
Save the Children New Zealand CEO Heather Campbell says, "The ICJ's opinion strengthens the argument that climate inaction is a form of intergenerational injustice, disproportionately borne by those least responsible and least equipped to adapt.
"At home in Aotearoa New Zealand, children and their families are experiencing the devastating impacts of extensive flooding and other climate-related emergencies, including Cyclone Gabrielle. Communities across the Nelson Tasman region are still reeling from floods that have destroyed homes and farmland, displaced families and closed schools.
"On a recent visit to Solomon Islands, children told us about the impact rising sea levels were having on their communities, including monthly flooding in homes and schools, saline infiltration into fresh water supplies, and crops being destroyed. In other parts of the Pacific, communities are having to constantly rebuild after multiple cyclones in the last few years alone. These are not future scenarios - they are current realities.
"Save the Children welcomes the finding from the ICJ, and we also urge governments and development agencies to ensure that climate finance reaches those on the frontline of this crisis.
"Currently, only 2.4% of climate finance from multilateral funding sources is child centred. Even without the Court's opinion, we know that states must do far more to protect children from the worst impacts of this crisis, including by significantly increasing climate finance to uphold children's rights and access to health, education and protection."
In light of the ICJ's Advisory Opinion, Save the Children New Zealand is calling on the New Zealand Government to renew its commitment to provide climate finance to help communities recover from climate induced loss and damage as well as working to reduce the country's carbon emissions.
As the world's leading independent child rights organisation, Save the Children works in about 110 countries, tackling climate change across everything we do. Save the Children supports children and their communities across the Pacific and globally in preventing, preparing for, adapting to, and recovering from both sudden climate disasters and slow onset climate change. We have set up floating schools, rebuilt destroyed homes and provided cash grants to families hit by disasters.
We also work to influence governments and other key stakeholders in Aotearoa New Zealand and around the world on climate policies, including at the UNFCCC COP summits, giving children a platform for their voices to be heard.
Notes:
[1] The Advisory Opinion is in response to a Pacific-led resolution (A/RES/77/276) to the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus on 29 March 2023. This was the result of an extensive campaign by a group of law students from the University of the South Pacific ( Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change ) with strong support from the Republic of Vanuatu. Save the Children has worked closely with the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change to ensure the voices of children and young people are incorporated into countries' written and oral submissions to the Court. As part of her campaigning work, Vepaiamele and other activists met with embassies of high emitting countriesin Vanuatu ahead of the hearing to try and influence their submissions.
[2] The report found that, for children born in 2020, if global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C rather than reaching 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels:
- About 38 million would be spared from facing unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves;
- About 8 million would avoid unprecedented lifetime exposure to crop failures;
- About 5 million would be spared from unprecedented lifetime exposure to river floods;
- About 5 million would avoid unprecedented lifetime exposure to tropical cyclones;
- About 2 million would avoid unprecedented lifetime exposure to droughts;
- About 1.5 million children would be spared unprecedented lifetime exposure to wildfires.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scientists urge coalition not to weaken methane target
Scientists urge coalition not to weaken methane target

RNZ News

timea day ago

  • RNZ News

Scientists urge coalition not to weaken methane target

The group has written to Climate Change Minister Simon Watts setting out the legal and trade consequences of a lower methane target. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Climate scientists have urged the Climate Change Minister to not weaken the country's methane target, after a landmark ruling out of the United Nations' highest court. Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found countries can be held responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. At the time, Lawyers for Climate Action said the ruling put further pressure on the government's climate plans, including any changes to the biogenic methane target. The group has now written to Simon Watts, cc'ing the prime minister, foreign affairs minister and trade minister, setting out the legal and trade consequences of a lower target. In the letter, they say reducing the target would breach New Zealand's obligations under the Paris Agreement, as well as its free trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union. They maintain it's "highly arguable" local agricultural exporters would have an unfair advantage over European producers if New Zealand lowered its methane target, putting around $635 million of export revenue at risk. They also say a lower target would see New Zealand join the likes of Russia and the United States in being one of the few countries to weaken its emissions reduction targets since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016. "Any such decision could have significant reputational, trade, and economic consequences for New Zealand, as our major trading partners continue to push forward on their Paris Agreement commitments," the letter says. Asked if the government planned on reducing the methane target, Watts said Cabinet hadn't made any decisions and he'd have more to say about it "soon". "Our methane target must be scientifically based and practical, ensuring we don't shut down kiwi farms," he said. Lawyers for Climate Action chief executive Jessica Palairet said the EU had the ability to take trade sanctions against New Zealand if it thought it had breached its climate commitments. "That's why this matters so much and the reason we wrote last week is because for the first time, we had authorised guidance from the world's top court on what it might mean for a party to effectively implement Paris, what it might mean to take an action that materially affects the object and purpose of Paris. "We're concerned that a weakening of New Zealand's methane targets would do just that and expose New Zealand to the risk of trade sanctions." Palairet said an earlier letter , in which 26 international climate change scientists accused the government of "ignoring scientific evidence", showed the strength of concern felt in her community. "It underscores the level of international concern and concern from the scientific community and how worrying this decision is. This isn't a decision that's being made on the basis of science. "It's a decision that's being made on the basis of politics to try and weaken New Zealand's ambition on methane in the face of international independent scientists advising the government not to do this." Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The Green Party has been critical of the National-ACT coalition agreement to review what a methane target based on a "no additional warming" principle would look like. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the fact the government would not rule out weakening the country's methane target after this review was "deeply concerning". "We said at the time that they were setting up a smoke screen for downgrading climate ambition and unfortunately given the minister's lack of ability to rule things out it is pretty clear that they are intending to downgrade our climate ambitions. "If they were to downgrade our biological gasses target that would mean either that they are downgrading ambition as a whole or that they are expecting all of the rest of the economy and households to pick up the slack." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration Ban Set To Be Overturned
Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration Ban Set To Be Overturned

Scoop

time2 days ago

  • Scoop

Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration Ban Set To Be Overturned

The 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas exploration is facing a repeal, with part of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill due for its third reading in Parliament today. A last-minute amendment passed on Tuesday means the Resources Minister and the Finance Minister would decide who pays for decommissioning of oil and gas fields. In the last Budget, the government set aside $200 million over four years for co-investment into new gas fields. The International Court of Justice said in last week's non-binding opinion that countries could be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment. Dr Nathan John Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato, comments: 'Current debate in New Zealand's Parliament on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill should bear in mind last week's ICJ Advisory Opinion on State Responsibility for climate change. 'Hon Shane Jones, Minister for Resources should be mindful that States have obligations under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and that States are subject to legal consequences connected to these obligations where they have caused climate harm. 'Moreover, States are responsible for climate harm caused by actors under their jurisdiction or control. This ICJ advice should induce caution when reconsidering the onerous obligations of oil and gas companies operating in New Zealand.' Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts of interest. Dr Jen Purdie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, comments: 'The government's Crown Minerals Amendment Bill proposes re-opening New Zealand's territorial waters to oil and gas exploration. 'This flies in the face of projections that global demand for oil will peak soon. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has predicted demand for oil will peak before 2030. A 2023 report by Shell projects fossil fuel use dropping rapidly in coming decades, while BP thinks oil demand for combustion has already peaked. Many large organisations think peak oil demand will happen this decade or the 2030s. But the progression from prospecting new oil and gas wells to exploration and mining can take decades. This new bill therefore just doesn't add up. 'The IEA has stated we don't need any new fossil fuel exploration or development, with enough projects already in existence or planned to meet global energy demand forecasts to 2050. New research agrees, saying governments around the world should stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences.' Weakening clean-up laws 'The government is also proposing weakening the law that requires oil and gas permit holders to pay for the decommissioning and clean-up of wells. This law was passed in 2021 in response to taxpayers having to pick up a NZ$400 million bill for decommissioning the Tui oil field after the financial collapse of the oil company. 'Weakening these laws re-opens the prospect of taxpayers paying for clean-up. The government may be weakening these laws to attract drilling interest, as many oil interests, including BP, project declining investment in new oil and gas infrastructure globally in coming decades, and the IEA's World Energy Investment report notes an ongoing hesitancy about oil and gas investment comes partly from concerns about downward long-term demand projections.' Natural gas 'New Zealand does not import natural gas, but our gas fields have been yielding less than forecast for some years. Increased maintenance drilling or limited new expansion of current gas fields for the next decade will help smooth the energy transition, alongside other measures to firm up intermittent renewable electricity.' Invest in the energy transition 'New Zealand should be moving away from oil drilling and instead invest in the energy transition, including decarbonisation of industrial heat, subsidising low-emitting vehicles (and charging high emitters), better public transport and bike lanes, increased EV charging infrastructure, and 'urban mining' (recycling) of batteries and other technology currently filling rubbish dumps.' Fossil fuels MUST stay in the ground 'We've known for some time that remaining fossil fuels must stay in the ground to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the world below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, and to enable us to continue to have a liveable planet.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I do occasional consulting work for various organisations in the energy industry.'

'From moral duty to legal obligation': Pacific church leader hails ICJ climate ruling
'From moral duty to legal obligation': Pacific church leader hails ICJ climate ruling

RNZ News

time2 days ago

  • RNZ News

'From moral duty to legal obligation': Pacific church leader hails ICJ climate ruling

Save the Children Vanuatu NextGen Youth Ambassadors and youth climate activists demonstrating ahead of the historic International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Photo: Save the Children The leader of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) says a landmark climate ruling from the world's top court is a significant win, but much more work is needed. The International Court of Justice (IJC) found last wekk that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. The advisory opinion also said failing to protect people from the effects of climate change could potentially violate international law. PCC secretary-general Reverend James Bhagwan spoke to Pacific Waves about the decision, alongside Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono. Tuiono is the Green's Pacific People's spokesperson. Bhagwan said the decision was a much-needed win for the region and climate advocates. "This really is about shifting things from a moral duty to a legal obligation," he said. "This is a really important step forward, considering that COP (Conference of Parties) after COP we fail to get the words that we need in statements; we fail to get real movement on climate financing [and] real action on mitigation." The ICJ's opinion delivered in the Hague on 24 July was the culmination of six years of advocacy and diplomatic manoeuvring which started with a group of Pacific university students in 2019. Vanuatu led the charge at an international level and was backed by other Pacific nations. Bhagwan urged advocates across the Pacific to use the ruling to advance the climate ambitions of their own countries and governments. "There is a lot of opportunities for us to work on the issues of so-called sustainable development, which are not really sustainable. "I think this is the challenge that we need to start pressuring all of our countries to pay attention to the advisory opinion and prepare ourselves for how we can actually make use of the opinion in a legal way as well," he said. Tuiono said the ruling did not bode well for the New Zealand government's track record on climate change. He said Aotearoa needed to listen to its fellow Pacific nations to truly address climate change. "New Zealand is part of the Pacific. We are part of a family of Pacific nations," he said. "In order for us to truly recognise that, [we have to] actually listen to the voices - particularly these young people - who have taken this all the way to the ICJ and have gotten the highest recognition." Tuiono said the decision added weight to the work of climate advocates across different industries and areas. He believed it could provide a framework for pushing for change. "I think that…it has enormous moral weight and has enormous legal weight…because it actually gives us guidelines, it gives us guard rails in… how we should be approaching things. "And I think states will be paying attention in terms of what their obligations [and] what their responsibilities are."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store