Latest news with #TorresStraitIslanders
ABC News
7 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
As Torres Strait battles rising seas, Canberra has been put on notice
To the beat of ancient drums, in the language of their ancestors, dancers from Australia's northernmost islands share a modern story. Outside the federal court in Cairns, Torres Strait Islander dancers wear grass skirts and the traditional headdresses of their warriors; their movements depict the rising of the seas and the strengthening of the currents. It's the story of climate change. Across the globe, outside the world's highest court in the Netherlands, our Pacific Island neighbours shared a similar dance about their culture and traditions. Together, they send a message to the world of what stands to be lost if leaders don't take serious action on climate change. Last week, the federal court found Australia does not owe a duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islander people and their culture from the impacts of climate change. In its wake, the International Court of Justice declared that states do have a "duty to cooperate" on addressing climate change or they risk breaching international law. It raises the question — will the Australian government heed the warning? Not many get to visit Australia's northernmost islands, but as one of the lucky ones, I witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts climate change is having on these small island communities, their livelihood, and culture. It is not a distant threat; it's happening now. Their loved ones' gravestones have been destroyed, beaches once used for camping eroded, and food is unable to be grown due to salty earth. Lead applicants for the case, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, explained how the seasons have changed and the migration of traditional food sources, turtles and dugongs, has shifted — generations of passed-down knowledge are being lost. As some of the lowest emitters contributing to the global carbon footprint, they are also amongst the most vulnerable to the impacts of the imposing climate frontline. Sea levels in the Strait are estimated to be rising at about twice the global average. Scientists predict that in 25 years, the islands will be uninhabitable. This is the reality we face as a nation — the severing of our connection to some of the world's oldest traditions and culture. Justice Michael Wigney accepted these facts in court last week but found the case failed not because it had no merit but because negligence law doesn't apply to 'core government policy', nor does it acknowledge the loss of culture. While sympathetic, he ultimately determined it was up to parliament to make decisions on climate policy, not the courts. "Until the law in Australia changes … the only real avenue for those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders involves public advocacy and protest or ultimately recourse via the ballot box," Justice Wigney said. This is little comfort for First Nations people who have been protesting environmental degradation and heritage destruction for decades, and are a minority at the ballot box. Three thousand kilometres away from the Torres Strait in Canberra, where the impacts of climate change are arguably not so visible, our leaders make the decisions on how Australia will participate in its global responsibility to address climate change. As Justice Wigney noted, "perhaps still are some climate change doubters and deniers among the politicians and bureaucrats." The landmark case put under the microscope the government's willingness to address the impacts of climate change and found that in the past, it hadn't been doing enough. The Commonwealth argued Australia was not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, at 1.3 per cent, and therefore has little impact on a global scale. But the Torres Strait Islanders argued Australia — a high-emitting country in per capita terms — was not contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce emissions, based on the best available science. If you include exports, Australia accounts for 4.5 per cent of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, with 80 per cent of those emissions from exports, according to the Climate Analytics Institute. Justice Wigney acknowledged the current Labor government has set "significantly higher and more ambitious goals" than the previous government. But Traditional Owners, environmental groups, and scientists were dismayed when it green-lit the controversial expansion of Woodside's Northwest Shelf gas project until 2070, despite their continued protests about the degradation of 50,000-year-old sacred rock art as well as its impact on emissions. Like the Torres Strait, our Pacific Island neighbours maintain ancient traditions and a deep connection to the land and sea. They are also on the climate change frontline. This week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that states have a legal obligation to address climate change, and if they don't, it may constitute "an internationally wrongful act". It was a campaign started in 2019 by students and youth organisations from Vanuatu, which is amongst the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. The 500-page opinion is not legally binding, but advocates and lawyers hope the world's highest court will hold some weight amongst the largest carbon emitters. Australia was one of 132 member states that requested the opinion in 2023, but in hearings, it argued that nations have no legal obligations on climate change beyond those in existing pacts like the Paris Agreement. This diverged from the views of the Pacific Islands and put into question Australia's role and responsibility as a key strategic partner in the Pacific. Could and should Australia be doing more to encourage other nations to do more to stop our neighbours from sinking beneath the tide? The historic ruling could pave the way for reparations for nations harmed by climate change and create a moral responsibility for Australia to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, as determined in the uncles' climate case, it will be up to the Commonwealth to decide whether it will listen to the international court, its Pacific neighbours, and its own people to do more. Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai fear their people will become Australia's first 'climate refugees', and it's a fear shared by Tuvaluans. Australia has already made a resettlement agreement with Tuvalu to take in their people as the seas rise. Tuvalu's former prime minister criticised the agreement as a way to "buy Tuvalu's silence over Australia's coal exports" in an opinion piece published by Radio New Zealand in 2023. In other words, planning for the worst rather than working to prevent it. Last year at Garma, I sat in the audience as Tuvalu's Minister for Climate Change Mania Talia spoke of the devastation his island nation faces from the rising seas. Something that stuck with me was his final comment expressing his admiration for the strength and resilience of First Nations people. "Despite all the difficulties, the problem that you're facing, you are able to dance and dancing in the face of despair is literally telling us that we have hope in the future," he said. "That's the message I'm going to take and tomorrow we'll also continue to dance our fidelity, our traditional dance, despite climate change." As the prime minister next week heads back to Garma, one of the country's largest Indigenous gatherings, will climate policy be on the agenda? The international court has made its decision, and vulnerable communities have made their plea, but will Australia act?
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Tackling dementia: New approach urged
Urgent action is needed to fight the 'darkness' of dementia, as the deadly condition threatens to affect 850,000 Australians by 2058, a leading brain researcher has said. Dementia is estimated to cost Australia's economy $18bn each year, a figure that will more than double to $37bn in 25 years. But Professor Henry Brodaty spoke to the National Press Club on Wednesday about the need for a new approach to tackling brain health. He said tackling the syndrome would increase productivity in Australia, and delaying the effects of it would allow people to work longer, especially as the workforce ages. A new approach was needed with increased investment to become a world leader in preventing or delaying dementia onset, he said. 'Think about the slip, slop, slap for skin health,' he said. 'We need the slip, slop, slap of brain health, now. 'Funding for dementia has lagged behind cancer and heart disease, even though it contributes more to disease burden. 'Research is critical to find the best ways to provide services efficiently.' He said dementia develops in Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders at 2-5 times the rate of the rest of the population, and suggested steps to counter this. 'Better care before, during and after pregnancy, and in early childhood, and particularly more education, could make a difference to this,' he said. Professor Brodaty said personalised coaching programs improved brain cognition, and increased people's fitness — pushing back the onset of dementia by a year or more. He said this could save Australia billions. 'Imagine what the return on investment would be if Australia did this?' he asked. 'Improving fitness, not only would improve cognition, it would improve fitness, physical, mental and social health.' But Professor Brodaty said Australia's National Dementia Action Plan has only $166m in funding, 'too little for what Australia needs'. 'I sympathise with the government, because there's always competing priorities and there's always other things that can be funded,' he said. 'But, when it makes sense economically, as well as personally to people, then why not do it?'
Perth Now
23-07-2025
- Health
- Perth Now
Tackling dementia: New approach urged
Urgent action is needed to fight the 'darkness' of dementia, as the deadly condition threatens to affect 850,000 Australians by 2058, a leading brain researcher has said. Dementia is estimated to cost Australia's economy $18bn each year, a figure that will more than double to $37bn in 25 years. But Professor Henry Brodaty spoke to the National Press Club on Wednesday about the need for a new approach to tackling brain health. He said tackling the syndrome would increase productivity in Australia, and delaying the effects of it would allow people to work longer, especially as the workforce ages. A new approach was needed with increased investment to become a world leader in preventing or delaying dementia onset, he said. Professor Brodaty said Australia needs the 'slip, slop, slap' of brain health. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'Think about the slip, slop, slap for skin health,' he said. 'We need the slip, slop, slap of brain health, now. 'Funding for dementia has lagged behind cancer and heart disease, even though it contributes more to disease burden. 'Research is critical to find the best ways to provide services efficiently.' He said dementia develops in Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders at 2-5 times the rate of the rest of the population, and suggested steps to counter this. 'Better care before, during and after pregnancy, and in early childhood, and particularly more education, could make a difference to this,' he said. Professor Brodaty said personalised coaching programs improved brain cognition, and increased people's fitness — pushing back the onset of dementia by a year or more. He said this could save Australia billions. Professor Brodaty said Australia's dementia research is underfunded. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'Imagine what the return on investment would be if Australia did this?' he asked. 'Improving fitness, not only would improve cognition, it would improve fitness, physical, mental and social health.' But Professor Brodaty said Australia's National Dementia Action Plan has only $166m in funding, 'too little for what Australia needs'. 'I sympathise with the government, because there's always competing priorities and there's always other things that can be funded,' he said. 'But, when it makes sense economically, as well as personally to people, then why not do it?'
News.com.au
23-07-2025
- Health
- News.com.au
Australia needs more investment in dementia research to tackle productivity losses, leading researcher says
Urgent action is needed to fight the 'darkness' of dementia, as the deadly condition threatens to affect 850,000 Australians by 2058, a leading brain researcher has said. Dementia is estimated to cost Australia's economy $18bn each year, a figure that will more than double to $37bn in 25 years. But Professor Henry Brodaty spoke to the National Press Club on Wednesday about the need for a new approach to tackling brain health. He said tackling the syndrome would increase productivity in Australia, and delaying the effects of it would allow people to work longer, especially as the workforce ages. A new approach was needed with increased investment to become a world leader in preventing or delaying dementia onset, he said. 'Think about the slip, slop, slap for skin health,' he said. 'We need the slip, slop, slap of brain health, now. 'Funding for dementia has lagged behind cancer and heart disease, even though it contributes more to disease burden. 'Research is critical to find the best ways to provide services efficiently.' He said dementia develops in Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders at 2-5 times the rate of the rest of the population, and suggested steps to counter this. 'Better care before, during and after pregnancy, and in early childhood, and particularly more education, could make a difference to this,' he said. Professor Brodaty said personalised coaching programs improved brain cognition, and increased people's fitness — pushing back the onset of dementia by a year or more. He said this could save Australia billions. 'Imagine what the return on investment would be if Australia did this?' he asked. 'Improving fitness, not only would improve cognition, it would improve fitness, physical, mental and social health.' But Professor Brodaty said Australia's National Dementia Action Plan has only $166m in funding, 'too little for what Australia needs'. 'I sympathise with the government, because there's always competing priorities and there's always other things that can be funded,' he said. 'But, when it makes sense economically, as well as personally to people, then why not do it?'
The Advertiser
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
History in making as World Court to advise on climate
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.
