Pacific Islands push hard as International Court of Justice set to deliver landmark climate ruling
But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it.
'Acts and omissions'
The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions.
Firstly, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions?
Secondly, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?'
The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable countries and their populations.
This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean.
'David Vs Goliath'
In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case.
The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions – the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance.
Advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings. Photo / Getty Images
'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings.
'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel.
Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary.
US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change'.
Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime'.
Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit.
'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji.
The United States, under President Donald Trump, has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement.
'Watery graves'
But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects.
'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop.
'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands.
After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least US$300 billion ($504 billion) a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather.
The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more.
'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu.
'Our people ... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create.
'They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.'
-Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Russia Must Act To End Long-Standing Trafficking For Labour Exploitation Of Migrant Women: UN Experts
GENEVA (28 July 2025) – UN experts* today expressed grave concern over credible and well-documented allegations of long-standing trafficking and forced labour of migrant women in the Golyanovo district of Moscow, in Russia. The victims, primarily from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have reportedly been subjected to extreme forms of exploitation and violence for decades. 'The facts described reveal deeply disturbing patterns of trafficking in persons and contemporary forms of slavery, enabled by systemic failures in the Russian legal and institutional framework,' the experts said. 'The lack of effective and timely investigations and the fact that perpetrators are not held accountable fuels impunity which is unacceptable.' According to information received, dozens of women were lured to Russia with false promises of legitimate employment in small shops. Once there, their documents were confiscated, and they were held in captivity, forced to work up to 20 hours a day in inhumane conditions without pay. Victims were reportedly subjected to torture, sexual violence and forced abortions, and their children were abducted. 'These women were isolated, abused, and stripped of all autonomy. The scale and duration of the abuse, coupled with the authorities' failure to act despite repeated complaints, point to a deeply entrenched system of exploitation,' the experts said. Despite dozens of complaints from victims and civil society organisations since the 1990s, Russian authorities have failed to conduct effective investigations, even refusing to register cases. The experts noted that investigations were often closed on the false assumption that victims had given consent, ignoring compelling evidence of coercion and abuse. They also raised alarm over Russia's failure to enact a comprehensive anti-trafficking legal framework, the criminalisation of assisting undocumented migrants, which deters victims from seeking help, and obstructs the work of civil society organisations, as well as individuals. 'We urge Russian authorities to take immediate and decisive action,' the experts said. 'This includes launching a comprehensive investigation, cooperating with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and ensuring justice and redress for all victims.' The case was recently considered by the European Court of Human Rights, which found Russia in violation of its obligation to prevent trafficking and protect victims (final judgment in the case of F.M. and Others v. Russia). 'Victims of human trafficking must not be punished for unlawful acts committed as a direct consequence of their exploitation,' the experts said. 'In violation of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Russian authorities failed to prevent trafficking, protect victims, or hold perpetrators accountable.' The experts are in contact with Russian authorities on this issue. Notes *The experts: Tomoya Obokata, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences; Gehad Madi, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Mariana Katzarova, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent fromany government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
UN Chief: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict At 'Breaking Point', Urges Push For Two-State Solution
28 July 2025 Addressing the high-level conference on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-State solution, Mr. Guterres delivered a stark message about the urgency of action and the cost of delay. ' For decades, Middle East diplomacy has been far more process than peace, ' he said. ' Words, speeches, declarations may not have much meaning to those on the ground. They have seen it before. They have heard it before. Meanwhile, destruction and annexation bulldoze ahead. ' He reiterated that the only just and sustainable path forward is the establishment of two independent, democratic States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security, with Jerusalem as the capital, based on pre-1967 lines and in line with international law and UN resolutions. UN Secretary-General addresses the opening segment of the high-level conference. There is no alternative Mr. Guterres challenged those resisting that vision. 'What is the alternative? A one-State reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights, and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality? A one-State reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land?' he asked. 'That is not peace. That is not justice. And that is not acceptable.' Earlier remarks: 'The truth is: we are at a breaking point' Speaking earlier in the day at the conference's pre-opening session, Mr. Guterres warned that the conflict had reached 'a breaking point'. It has endured for generations, 'defying hopes, defying diplomacy, defying countless resolutions, defying international law,' he said. 'But we also know its persistence is not inevitable. It can be resolved. That demands political will and courageous leadership.' He urged Member States to move beyond 'well-meaning rhetoric' and make the conference a turning point 'towards ending the occupation and realising our shared aspiration for a viable two-State solution'. ' It is the sine qua non [Latin for indispensable or absolutely essential] for peace across the wider Middle East, ' he said. About the conference The three-day conference, mandated by the General Assembly through resolutions ES-10/24 and 79/81 and co-organized by France and Saudi Arabia, brings together Member States, observers and regional stakeholders. It features plenary discussions and thematic roundtables on issues ranging from security arrangements and humanitarian response to reconstruction and economic viability. Time is running out In his opening address, the Secretary-General stressed the need for swift action: ' With every passing day, trust is slipping. Institutions are weakened. And hopes are dashed. ' He laid out a clear list of required steps: an immediate end to violence, annexation and settlement activity; rejection of forced displacement; accountability for violations of international law; and a recommitment to a credible political dialogue rooted in the equal rights and dignity of both peoples. Gaza, a cascade of catastrophes Turning to the war in Gaza, Mr. Guterres reiterated his condemnation of Hamas' 7 October 2023 terror attacks on Israel, but said the response has brought unprecedented destruction. ' Gaza has descended into a cascade of catastrophes, ' he said. 'Tens of thousands dead. Virtually the entire population displaced many times over. The shadow of starvation looming over everyone.' He called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages, and unfettered humanitarian access. ' These are not preconditions for peace. They are the foundation of it. ' Resolve, not manage Closing his remarks, the Secretary-General urged all parties to choose peace not as an aspiration, but as a duty. ' This conflict cannot be managed. It must be resolved. We cannot wait for perfect conditions. We must create them. We cannot defer peace efforts until suffering becomes unbearable. We must act before it is too late,' he said. He called for peace not as a concept, but a commitment. ' Not as a dream, but as a reality – for Palestinians, for Israelis, for the people of the Middle East, and for the world. ' Assembly President: 'We cannot go on like this' Also addressing the opening, UN General Assembly President Philémon Yang said the Gaza war and the wider crisis have made it 'painfully clear – we cannot go on like this.' President of the General Assembly addresses the opening segment of the high-level conference. He called for 'decisive change' and warned that further delay would deepen suffering and destroy any remaining hopes for peace. ' This conflict cannot be resolved through permanent war, nor through endless occupation or annexation…We simply cannot afford more excuses, more delays. We must act now. ' He reiterated the Assembly's recent demands, including an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, the release of all hostages and full humanitarian access. He also highlighted growing global recognition of Palestinian statehood, citing President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will extend formal recognition. Concluding, Mr. Yang urged action towards a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ' The focus of this conference must therefore be concrete and action-oriented, identifying steps the international community must take to realise the two-State solution, ' he said. 'One that upholds international law, the UN Charter and relevant UN resolutions. And especially one that achieves justice for Palestinians and Israelis. One that ensures a peaceful, prosperous, and equitable future for everyone in the Middle East.'
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
How Pacific students took their climate fight to the world's highest court. And won.
By Jamie Tahana for RNZ Pacific It was 2019 when a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific's campus in Port Vila, the harbourside capital of Vanuatu, were set a challenge in their tutorial. They had been learning about international law and, in groups, were tasked with finding ways it could address climate change. Photo: Supplied / Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change Vishal Prasad admitted to being nervous as he stood outside the imposing palace in the Hague, with its towering brick facade, marble interiors and crystal chandeliers. It had taken more than six years of work to get here, where he was about to hear a decision he said could throw a "lifeline" to his home islands. The Peace Palace, the home of the International Court of Justice, could not feel further from the Pacific. Yet it was here in this Dutch city that Prasad and a small group of Pacific islanders in their bright shirts and shell necklaces last week gathered before the UN's top court to witness an opinion they had dreamt up when they were at university in 2019 and managed to convince the world's governments to pursue. "The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights," ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa ruled. Photo: AFP / John Thys "We're here to be heard," said Siosiua Veikune, who was one of those students, as he waited on the grass verge outside the court's gates. "Everyone has been waiting for this moment, it's been six years of campaigning." What they wanted to hear was that more than a moral obligation, addressing climate change was also a legal one. That countries could be held responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions - both contemporary and historic - and that they could be penalised for their failure to act. "For me personally, [I want] clarity on the rights of future generations," Veikune said. "What rights are owed to future generations? Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again, and this is another step towards that justice." And they won. Vishal Prasad (Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change) speaks to the press before the International Court of Justice following the conclusion of an advisory opinion on countries' obligations to protect the climate. Photo: AFP / Lina Selg The court's president, Yuji Iwasawa, took more than two hours to deliver an unusually stinging advisory opinion from the normally restrained court, going through the minutiae of legal arguments before delivering a unanimous ruling which largely fell on the side of Pacific states. "The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights," he said, adding that sea-level rise, desertification, drought and natural disasters "may significantly impair certain human rights, including the right to life". After the opinion, the victorious students and lawyers spilled out of the palace alongside Vanuatu's climate minister, Ralph Regenvanu. Their faces were beaming, if not a little shellshocked. "The world's smallest countries have made history," Prasad told the world's press from the palace's front steps. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities". "Young people around the world stepped up, not only as witnesses to injustice, but as architects of change". Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (3rd L) speaks to the media after an International Court of Justice (ICJ) session tasked with issuing the first Advisory Opinion (AO) on states' legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on 23 July 2025. Photo: AFP / John Thys It was 2019 when a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific's campus in Port Vila, the harbourside capital of Vanuatu, were set a challenge in their tutorial. They had been learning about international law and, in groups, were tasked with finding ways it could address climate change. It was a particularly acute question in Vanuatu, one of the countries most vulnerable to the climate crisis. Many of the students' teenage years had been defined by Cyclone Pam, the category five storm that ripped through much of the country in 2015 with winds in excess of 250km/h. It destroyed entire villages, wiped out swathes of infrastructure and crippled the country's crops and water supplies. The storm was so significant that thousands of kilometres away, in Tuvalu, the waves it whipped up displaced 45 percent of the country's population and washed away an entire islet. Pam was meant to be a once-in-a-generation storm, but Vanuatu's been struck by five more category five cyclones since then. Belyndar Rikimani Photo: Supplied Among many of the students, there was a frustration that no one beyond their borders seemed to care particularly much, recalled Belyndar Rikimani, a student from Solomon Islands who was at USP in 2019. She saw it as obscene that the communities with the smallest carbon footprint were paying the steepest price for a crisis they had almost no hand in creating. Each year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was releasing a new avalanche of data that painted an increasingly grim prognosis for the Pacific. But, Rikimani said, the people didn't need reams of paper to tell them that, for they were already acutely aware. On her home island of Malaita, coastal villages were being inundated with every storm, the schools of fish on which they relied were migrating further away, and crops were increasingly failing. "We would go by the sea shore and see people's graves had been taken out," Rikimani recalled. "The ground they use to garden their food in, it is no longer as fertile as it has once been because of the changes in weather." The mechanism used by the world to address climate change is largely based around a UN framework of voluntary agreements and summits - known as COP - where countries thrash out goals they often fail to meet. But it was seen as impotent by small island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean, who accused the system of being hijacked by vested interests set on hindering any drastic cuts to emissions. So, the students posited, what if there was a way to push back? To add some teeth to the international process and move the climate discussion beyond agreements and adaptation to those of equity and justice? To give small countries a means to nudge those seen to be dragging their heels. "From the beginning we were aware of the failure of the climate system or climate regime and how it works," Prasad, who in 2019 was studying at the USP campus in Fiji's capital, Suva, told me. "This was known to us. Obviously there needs to be something else. Why should the law be silent on this?" The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main court for international law. It adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big cross-border legal issues. So, the students wondered, could an advisory opinion help? What did international law have to say about climate change? Members of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. Photo: Supplied / Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change Unlike most students, who'd leave such discussions in the classroom, they decided to find out. But the ICJ doesn't hear cases from groups or individuals; they would have to convince a government to pursue the challenge. Together, they wrote to various Pacific governments hoping to discuss the idea. It was ambitious, they conceded, but in one of the regions most threatened by rising seas and intensifying storms, they hoped there would at least be some interest. But rallying enough students to join their cause was the first hurdle. "There was a lot of doubts from the beginning," Rikimani said. "We were trying to get the students who could, you know, be a part of the movement. And it was hard, it was too big, too grand." In the end, 27 people gathered to form the genesis of a new organisation: Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, or PISFCC. A couple of weeks went by before a response popped up in their inboxes. The government of Vanuatu was intrigued. Ralph Regenvanu, who was at that time the foreign minister, asked the students if they would like to swing by for a meeting. "I still remember when [the] group came into my office to discuss this. And I felt solidarity with them," Regenvanu recalled last week. "I could empathise with where they were, what they were doing, what they were feeling. So it was almost like the time had come to actually, okay, let's do something about it." The students - "dressed to the nines," as Regenvanu recalled - gave a presentation on what they hoped to achieve. Regenvanu was convinced. Not long after the wider Vanuatu government was, too. Now it was time for them to convince other countries. "It was just a matter of the huge diplomatic effort that needed to be done," Regenvanu said. "We had Odi Tevi, our ambassador in New York, who did a remarkable job with his team. And the strategy we employed to get a core group of countries from all over the world to be with us." "It's interesting that, you know, some of the most important achievements of the international community originated in the Pacific," Regenvanu said, citing efforts in the 20th century to ban nuclear testing, or support decolonisation. "We have this unique geographic and historic position that makes us able to, as small states, have a voice that's much louder, I think. And you saw that again in this case, that it's the Pacific once again taking the lead to do something that is of benefit to the whole world." What Vanuatu needed to take the case to the ICJ was to garner a majority of the UN General Assembly - that is, a majority of every country in the world - to vote to ask the court to answer a question. To rally support, they decided to start close to home. The students set their sights on the Pacific Islands Forum, the region's pre-eminent political group, which that year was holding its annual leaders' summit in Tuvalu. A smattering of atolls along the equator which, in recent years, has become a reluctant poster child for the perils of climate change. Tuvalu had hoped world leaders on Funafuti would see a coastline being eaten by the ocean, evidence of where the sea washes across the entire island at King tide, or saltwater bubbles up into gardens to kill crops, and that it would convince the world that time was running out. But the Forum was a disaster. Pacific countries had pushed for a strong commitment from the region's leaders at their retreat, but it nearly broke down when Australia's government refused to budge on certain red lines. The then-prime minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, accused Australia and New Zealand of neo-colonialism , questioning their very role in the Forum. "That was disappointing," Prasad said. "The first push was, okay, let's put it at the forum and ask leaders to endorse this idea and then they take it forward. It was put on the agenda but the leaders did not endorse it; they 'noted' it. The language is 'noted', so it didn't go ahead." Another disappointment came a few months later, when Rikimani and another of the students, Solomon Yeo, travelled to Spain for the annual COP meeting, the UN process where the world's countries agree their next targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But small island countries left angry after a small bloc derailed any progress , despite massive protests. Solomon Yeo of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, standing second left, with youth climate activists. Photo: Supplied / Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change That was an eye-opening two weeks in Madrid for Rikimani, whose initial skepticism of the system had been validated. "It was disappointing when there's nothing that's been done. There is very little outcome that actually, you know, safeguards the future of the Pacific," she said. "But for us, it was the COP where there was interest being showed by various young leaders from around the world, seeing that this campaign could actually bring light to these climate negotiations." By now, Regenvanu said, that frustration was boiling over and more countries were siding with their campaign. By the end of 2019, that included some major countries from Europe and Asia, who brought financial and diplomatic heft. Other small-island countries from Africa and the Caribbean had also joined. "Many of the Pacific states had never appeared before the ICJ before. So [we were] doing write shops with legal teams from different countries," he said. "We did write shops in Latin America, in the Caribbean, in the Pacific, in Africa, getting people just to be there at the court to present their stories, and then of course trying to coordinate." Meanwhile, Prasad was trying to spread word elsewhere. The hardest part, he said, was making it relevant to the people. International law, the Hague, the Paris Agreement and other such like were nebulous and tedious. How could this possibly help the fisherman on Banaba struggling to haul in a catch? To rally support, the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change decided to start close to home. Photo: Supplied / Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change They spent time travelling to villages and islands, sipping kava shells and sharing meals, weaving a testimony of Indigenous stories and knowledge. In Fiji, he said, the word for land is vanua, which is also the word for life. "It's the source of your identity, the source of your culture. It's this connection that the land provides the connection with the past, with the ancestors, and with a way of life and a way of doing things." He travelled to the village of Vunidologa where, in 2014, its people faced the rupture of having to leave their ancestral lands, as the sea had marched in too far. In the months leading up to the relocation, they held prayer circles and fasted. When the day came, the elders wailed as they made the roughly two kilometre move inland. "That's the element of injustice there. It touches on this whole idea of self-determination that was argued very strongly at the ICJ, that people's right to self-determination is completely taken away from them because of climate change," Prasad said. "Some have even called it a new face of colonialism. And that's not fair and that cannot stand in 2025." If 2019 was the year of building momentum, then a significant hurdle came in 2020, when the coronavirus shuttered much of the world. COP summits were delayed and the Pacific Islands Forum postponed. The borders of the Pacific were sealed for as long as two years. But the students kept finding ways to gather their body of evidence. "Everything went online, we gathered young people who would be able to take this idea forward in their own countries," Prasad said. On the diplomatic front, Vanuatu kept plugging away to rally countries so that by the time the Forum leaders met again, in 2022, they were ready to ask for support again. "It was in Fiji and we were so worried about the Australia and New Zealand presence at the Forum because we wanted an endorsement so that it would send a signal to all the other countries: 'the Pacific's on board, let's get the others'," Prasad recalled. "We were very worried about Australia, but it was more like if Australia declines to support then the whole process falls, and we thought New Zealand might also follow along." They didn't. In an about-turn, Australia was now fully behind the campaign for an advisory opinion, and the New Zealand government was by now helping out too. By the end of 2022, several European powers were also involved. Attention now turned to developing what question they wanted to actually ask the international court. And how would they write it in such a way that the majority of the world's governments would back it. "That was the process where it was make and break really to get the best outcome we could," said Regenvanu. "In the end we got a question that was like 90 percent as good as we wanted and that was very important to get that and that was a very difficult process." By December 2022, Vanuatu announced that it would ask the UN General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice to weigh what, exactly, international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions. More lobbying followed and then, in March 2023, it came to a vote and the result was unanimous. The UN assembly in New York erupted in cheers at a rare sign of consensus. "All countries were on board," said Regenvanu. "Even those countries that opposed it [we] were able to talk to them so they didn't oppose it publicly." They were off to The Hague. Late last year, the court held two weeks of hearings in which countries put forth their arguments. Julian Aguon, a Chamorro lawyer from Guam who was one of the lead counsel, told the court that "these testimonies unequivocally demonstrate that climate change has already caused grievous violations of the right to self-determination of peoples across the subregion." Over its deliberations, the court heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court's history. That included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls, who were hoping the court would provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries' actions. They argued that climate change threatened fundamental human rights - such as life, liberty, health, and a clean environment - as well as other international laws like those of the sea, and those of self-determination. In their testimonies, high-emitting Western countries, including Australia, the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia maintained that the current system was enough. It's been a tense and nervous wait for the court's answer, but they finally got it last Wednesday. "We were pleasantly surprised by the strength of the decision," Regenvanu said. "The fact that it was unanimous, we weren't expecting that." The court said states had clear obligations under international law, and that countries - and, by extension, individuals and companies within those countries - were required to curb emissions. It also said the environment and human rights obligations set out in international law did indeed apply to climate change, and that countries had a right to pursue restitution for loss and damage. The opinion is legally non-binding. But even so, it carries legal and political weight. Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court's opinion, and states could also return to the ICJ to hold each other to account, something Regenvanu said Vanuatu wasn't ruling out. But, ultimately, he hoped it wouldn't reach that point, and the advisory opinion would be seen as a wake-up call. "We can call upon this advisory opinion in all our negotiations, particularly when countries say they can only do so much," Regenvanu said. "They have said very clearly [that] all states have an obligation to do everything within their means according to the best available science." "It's really up to all countries of the world - in good faith - to take this on, realise that these are the legal obligations under custom law. That's very clear. There's no denying that anymore. And then discharge your legal obligations. And if you are in breach, fix the breach, acknowledge that you have caused harm. Help to set it right. And also don't do it again." Vishal Prasad still hadn't quite processed the whole thing by the time we met again the next morning. In shorts, t-shirt, and jandals, he cut a much more relaxed figure as he reclined on a couch sipping a mug of coffee. His phone had been buzzing non-stop with messages from around the world. "Oh, it definitely does not feel real. I don't think it's settled in," he said. "I got, like, a flood of messages, well wishes. People say, 'you guys have changed the world'. I think it's gonna take a while." He was under no illusions that there was a long road ahead. The court's advisory came at a time when international law and multilateralism was under particular strain. When the urgency of the climate debate from a few years ago appears to have given way to a new enthusiasm for fossil fuel in some countries. He had no doubt the Pacific would continue to lead those battles. "People have been messaging me that across the group chats they're in, there's this renewed sense of courage, strength and determination to do something because of what the ICJ has said," he said. "I've just been responding to messages and just saying thanks to people and just talking to them and I think it's amazing to see that it's been able to cause such a shift in the climate movement." Vishal Prasad Photo: AFP / William West Watching the advisory opinion being read out at 3am in Honiara was Belyndar Rikimani, hunched over a live stream in the dead of the night. "What's very special about this campaign is that it didn't start with government experts, climate experts or policy experts. It started with students. And these law students are not from Harvard or Cambridge or all those big universities, but they are students from the Pacific that have seen the first-hand effects of climate change. It started with students that have the heart to see change for our islands and for our people."
