Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, 'a trailblazer' for Vanuatu women in politics, has died
Lini passed away at the Port Vila General Hospital on Sunday, according to local media.
Lini was the first woman to be elected to parliament in 1987 as a member of the National United Party.
She went on to become the country's first female minister in 1991 after being appointed as the Minister for Health and Rural Water Supplies. She held several ministerial portfolios until the late 1990s, serving three terms in parliament.
She is the sister of the late Father Walter Lini, who is regarded as the country's founding father.
She was a chief of the Turaga nation of Pentecost Island in Vanuatu.
"On behalf of the government, we wish to extend our deepest condolences to the Lini family for the passing of late Motarilavoa Hilda Lini — one of the first to break through our male-dominated parliament during those hey days," the Vanuatu Ministry for the Prime Minister said in a statement on Monday.
"She later championed many causes, including a Nuclear Free Pacific. Rest in Peace soldier, for you have fought a great fight."
In a condolence message posted on Facebook, Vanuatu's Speaker Stephen Dorrick Felix Ma Au Malfes said Lini was "a trailblazer who paved the way for women in leadership and politics in Vanuatu".
"Her courage, dedication and vision inspired many and have left an indelible mark on the history of our nation.
"As Vanuatu continues to grow and celebrate its independence, her story and contributions will forever be remembered and honoured. She has left behind a legacy filled with wisdom, strength, and cherished memories that we will carry with us always.
Vanuatu human rights women's rights advocate Anne Pakoa said Lini was a "Pacific hero".
"She was a woman of integrity, a prestigious, wise and yet very humble woman leader," Pakoa wrote in a Facebook post.
Port Vila MP Marie Louise Milne, the third woman to represent the capital in parliament after the late Lini and the late Maria Crowby, said "Lini was more than a leader".
"She was a pioneer… serving our country with strength, dignity, and an unshakeable commitment to justice and peace. She carried her chiefly title with pride, wisdom, and purpose, always serving with the voice of a true daughter of the land," Milne said.
"I remember her powerful presence at the Independence Day flag-raising ceremonies, calling me 'Marie Louise' in her firm, commanding tone — a voice that resonated with leadership and care.
"Though I am not in Port Vila to pay my last respects in person, I carry her memory with me in my heart, in my work, and in my prayers. My thoughts are with the Lini family and all who mourn this national loss."
She said Lini's legacy lives on in every woman who rises to serve, in every Ni-Vanuatu who believes in justice and unity.
"She will forever remain a symbol of strength for Vanuatu and for all Melanesian women."
Motarilavoa Hilda Lini will be buried in North Pentecost on Tuesday.
RNZ
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
4 days ago
- ABC News
A climate 'reckoning' just unfolded at the International Court of Justice. What does it mean?
It's been hailed as a "planetary scale" win for climate advocates pushing for stronger action against carbon pollution. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. Observers say it's a clear victory for nations, led by Pacific Island country Vanuatu, that campaigned for the case to be heard at the world's highest court. "It's hard to overstate how momentous this ruling is," said Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW's Institute for Climate Risk and Response. And environmental advocates and experts say the decision will have consequences for Australia — a major exporter of fossil fuels — that could include legal action. So what was the case about? What did the ICJ decide? And what does it mean for climate change action? The ICJ, also known as the World Court, was asked to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail. It's the first time the court has made a decision on a climate change case. It involved a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, and the court's 15 judges spent months poring over tens of thousands of pages of documents before reaching a decision. But, the road to the ICJ started in a classroom back in 2019, when a group of Pacific Islander law students in Vanuatu looked for a way to solve the apparent international "deadlock" on climate change action. They decided to ask the World Court to clarify what responsibilities nations had to address climate change, and soon gained diplomatic support from Vanuatu's government, which led a successful global campaign for the ICJ to hear the case. More than six months after 100 nations made their arguments at the court in December, the judges handed down their long-awaited decision on Wednesday, local time. The ICJ issued a clear and unanimous decision on the issue. It declared countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions. The court also found that failing to do so is a "wrongful act" that could mean polluting nations have to pay reparations to countries harmed by climate change. It rejected arguments put forward by high-emitting nations that it was impossible to attribute greenhouse gas emissions to individual countries. And it said a "clean, healthy and stable environment" is a human right. Importantly for Australia, the ICJ singled out fossil fuels in its decision. The judges found that fossil fuel production and consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The court also found countries are responsible for regulating the emissions of private companies. While the ICJ's 500-page decision is non-binding, observers say it will reach far and wide in its impact. "We have a ruling today that will reverberate around the world and will echo through history," Dr Morgan said. "This is a planetary scale decision. "Today is actually a day of reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and for governments that continue to allow fossil fuel companies to harm the Earth's climate system." Experts say first, it will strengthen the hand of nations vulnerable to climate change in talks such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP. "Those states are able to go into those negotiations armed with this very powerful advisory opinion," Australian National University professor in international law Donald Rothwell said. Vanuatu's special envoy on climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, told the ABC the finding had shifted discussions from one of "voluntary commitments" to reduce emissions, to one about legally binding obligations under international law. And if those talks come to nought, the decision also paves the way for legal action, Professor Rothwell said. "The advisory opinion really opens the door for litigation to proceed by those specially affected states being able to rely upon the very clear outline of the extent of the obligations … that the court talks about in its opinion." Australia co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution referring the case to the ICJ. But it later drew rebuke from climate advocates after its arguments to the court diverged sharply from those of Pacific Island nations. While Vanuatu urged the ICJ to use a broad set of international laws in reaching its decision, Australia argued that nations' obligations largely did not extend beyond major international climate treaties, including the Paris Agreement. The ICJ has not accepted Australia's argument — one that was also put forward by other large carbon-emitting nations. Observers and environmental advocates say the advisory opinion will impact Australia. Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said it made clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production — whether used domestically or exported — due to the significant harm it causes and "regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned". Isabelle Reinecke, executive director and founder of the Grata Fund, said the advisory opinion seriously calls into question the legality of Australia's past and ongoing approval of fossil fuel projects and its subsidies for fossil fuel companies. "It makes crystal clear that so long as the Australian government's efforts to protect the world's climate system fall short of stabilising global heating at 1.5 degrees, it could be liable to litigation from other countries." And shortly after the ICJ handed down its finding, Mr Regenvanu did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries, including Australia. An Australian government spokesperson on Thursday morning said it recognises that climate change "is one of the greatest existential threats to all humanity, and that it's having a significant effect on our region". "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change," the spokesperson said. They said the government would embed serious climate targets in law and make the changes necessary to achieve them. "We will now carefully consider the court's opinion." Pacific countries are celebrating the ICJ's decision after leading the charge for nations vulnerable to climate change at the court. Fiji's prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, said the country was grateful for the advisory opinion. Reverend James Bhagwan, general-secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches and leading climate justice advocate for Pacific Island communities, described it as a "call to conscience". "Now we can really hold states accountable if they are not doing enough. And this can also be applied to companies and industries as well," he said. "If a healthy environment is a human right, then rivers, forests, mountains, and the ocean must be recognised as rights-bearing entities." For Pacific Island nations experiencing major cyclones, coastal inundation and sea level rise, the court case was about survival, Dr Morgan said. "They know that today the Pacific has again shaped global efforts to tackle the climate crisis," he said. Vepaiamele Trief, a 16-year-old Save the Children youth ambassador, said the advisory opinion will pave the way for a safer future for young people. "I really hope to see more climate action from all states, but mainly large polluting states that need to be held accountable for their actions."
SBS Australia
4 days ago
- SBS Australia
Countries have a duty to fight climate change, court says
An international court says countries have an obligation to prevent harm from climate change and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Activists welcomed the non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight as a step in the right direction. The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The ICJ decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection , reparations and a future". The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu called the deliberation a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Judge Iwasawa said the two questions "represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet". "International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem," he said. "A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. "Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the individual, social and political levels — to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come."
ABC News
4 days ago
- ABC News
Top court rules on legal obligation to fight climate change
Sabra Lane: The United Nations top court has found countries that fail to take measures to prevent climate change could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice's landmark ruling has paved the way for countries to sue each other over the impacts of climate change. It's been welcomed by environmental groups and legal experts who say it's a victory for small islands in countries suffering from the impacts of high polluting nations. Europe correspondent Bridget Rollason reports. Protesters: What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now! Bridget Rollason: Outside the Hague's World Court, protesters gathered to witness a historic moment in international law. Samira Ben Ali travelled to the Netherlands from Africa for the hearing, which could change the course of future climate action across the world. Samira Ben Ali: If we don't take action now, if we don't reduce our emissions, then this is going to keep on going and it's going to become bigger and bigger. Bridget Rollason: The landmark case before the International Court of Justice has been hailed a David and Goliath battle. A group of Pacific students were able to bring the world's biggest problem to the world's highest court through a global campaign led by Vanuatu and backed by 130 countries, including Australia. For the first time, its 15 judges were asked to decide what obligations states have to prevent climate change and what are the consequences if they fail. President of the court, Yuji Iwasawa, said if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law, even if they're not signed up to the Paris Agreement or want to leave, like the US. Yuji Iwasawa: The consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching. They affect both natural ecosystems and human populations. Bridget Rollason: Nearly 100 countries gave evidence over two weeks of hearings in the court's biggest ever case. President Iwasawa ruled countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to compensation and sue other countries for damage they've suffered from rising global temperatures. Yuji Iwasawa: The court considers that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life, right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living. Bridget Rollason: The landmark 500-page ruling is non-binding, but it's seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. It's been welcomed by environmental groups and legal experts, who say it's a victory for small islands and countries taking legal action against big polluting nations for failing to reduce their emissions. Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, Joie Chowdhry, said the ruling is more than just a powerful symbol. Joie Chowdhury: It could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touched, which run to the very heart of climate justice, and could secure a lifeline for climate-affected communities and nations all over the world. Sabra Lane: That's Joie Chowdhury from the Centre for International Environmental Law, ending that report from Bridget Rollason.
