History in making as World Court to advise on climate
The Advertiser22-07-2025
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
15 hours ago
- ABC News
Albanese embraced by NZ Prime Minister Chris Luxon as two countries flag increased defence cooperation
China's presence in the Pacific and a push for peace in the Middle East were at the centre of talks between Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon on Saturday. Both prime ministers were keen to present a united front on global uncertainty as they stood side by side in chilly Queenstown for annual talks. After both countries signed a joint statement condemning Israel's plan to further expand its military operations in the Gaza Strip by taking over Gaza City, the leaders expressed their concern during their joint press conference. Mr Albanese reiterated Australia's desire to see a ceasefire, as well as more aid flowing into the besieged Palestinian territory and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.. Despite the United Kingdom, France and Canada all proposing to recognise a Palestinian state in September at a major United Nations meeting, Australia and New Zealand have not put a timeline on when they will look to do so. Before formal discussions began, Mr Albanese was welcomed to New Zealand with a traditional Māori pōwhiri ceremony, and was embraced by Mr Luxon. It's the seventh time the two leaders have met as prime ministers, but they've known each other since long before that, when Mr Luxon was the head of Air New Zealand and Mr Albanese was Australia's transport minister. The official sit-down went for about an hour, after which the pair took a strictly limited six questions from the Australian and New Zealand press pack. The leaders confirmed they had discussed China and security in the Indo-Pacific, while also noting they had both recently visited China — a significant trading partner to both nations. They also made sure to emphasise their commitment to the Pacific family and its security. On the home front, both leaders signalled a desire to deepen defence ties between the two countries, with Mr Luxon saying he wanted Australia and New Zealand's militaries to operate as one ANZAC force. Despite a consistent push from the Trump administration for countries to boost their defence spending, both Mr Albanese and Mr Luxon stood by their current commitments to lift their spending to about 2 per cent of GDP. However, Mr Luxon did signal that he hoped to raise that figure, if possible. Mr Albanese's trip to New Zealand is only brief, lasting about 24 hours. While it's his third visit since becoming prime minister in 2022, he has not travelled to Queenstown since he was a young backpacker. He'll get a very different experience of the sites this time around — Mr Luxon and his wife are expected to spend Sunday morning showing Mr Albanese and his fiancee, Jodie Haydon, the city's stunning surrounds. Mr Albanese and Mr Luxon are both keen to promote tourism between their two countries, given Australia and New Zealand are each other's biggest tourism markets.
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
PM heads to NZ to discuss trade, security
The Prime Minister is making a quick trip to New Zealand to discuss trade, security and cooperation on international issues at a time of global uncertainty.
The Age
a day ago
- The Age
Heba's days are spent thinking about a city on the other side of the world
Two cousins and her aunt are dead, and Heba Kassoua's grandfather's home has been burned to the ground. The 36-year-old Australian citizen lives and works in Parramatta but, over the past month, most of her days have been spent thinking about her family in Sweida, a city in southern Syria. Violence broke out in mid-July, one of the first major surges of conflict since dictator Bashar al-Assad was toppled in December. Clashes had been escalating between armed groups of Syrian Bedouin tribes and the militia representing the local Druze population, a religious minority native to the region, before the interim Syrian government had sent local security forces in and further inflamed the situation. Israel, which has its own Druze minority, launched air strikes on Sweida and Damascus, which it says were in support of the Druze. In addition to the more than 1500 people killed during the violence, about 349 of whom were executed according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the UN estimates more than 190,000 people have been displaced. A fragile ceasefire has mostly held since July 19. Five members of Kassoua's family – all Druze – are among the dead. Her aunt, Ghossen Kassoua, died after spending five days inside her sister's home in a village that came under attack. 'There wasn't anyone who could go out and get her medication [for a heart condition and diabetes],' Kassoua said. 'The doctors were either attending to the injured or couldn't do house calls and her condition got much worse. She ended up passing away while she was still in lockdown. She was dead and they couldn't even bury her until two days after.' More than 300 members of Australia's Druze community have written to the federal government pleading for Australian support for aid in the region. 'We are calling for the government to condemn the sectarian violence publicly and demand an independent investigation. We want humanitarian aid,' Kassoua said.
