(contenu disponible en anglais uniquement)
Opinion Editorial by Miles Young, Director, and Ashley Bowe, Adviser, Human Rights & Sustainable Development at the Pacific Community (SPC). SPC is the principal scientific and technical organisation working for 22 Pacific Island countries and territories as an extension of government. SPC holds a mandate in youth development, human rights, gender equality, and many other areas of science and technical areas of work. SPC worked alongside the students who led this work and with the Republic of Vanuatu to support meaningful Pacific engagement through this process.
The recent landmark International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change demonstrates that human rights are universal and pivotal to addressing the existential threat posed to Pacific Island countries by climate change. The Court determined that climate change is real and that States have an obligation under international law to urgently and actively address it. So how can the Pacific capitalise on the opportunity presented by the advisory opinion to address the harms to our environment, using human rights as a driver?
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – commonly referred to as the ‘World Court’ and comprised of 15 highly-credentialled judges from across the globe – issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. The advisory opinion is an authoritative interpretation of binding international law with moral weight and persuasive authority that many across the world have hailed as a ‘win’ for climate justice and an ‘historic’ and ‘landmark’ outcome. In short, the advisory opinion considered the breadth of international law and concluded that States are: (a) under a legal obligation to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gas emissions, both for current and future generations; and (b) therefore legally responsible for any breaches of their legal obligations (including through actions or inactions) that have caused significant climate harm.
The advisory opinion was the culmination of a campaign initiated by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and a United Nations General Assembly resolution led by The Republic of Vanuatu and supported by 12 Pacific Island countries. The ICJ has never received as many submissions from parties in any case before this one – in the lead-up to the issuance of the advisory opinion, the Court received 91 written statements on the matter, while a further 107 oral statements were made to the Court in December 2024. Thirteen Pacific Island countries and 11 Pacific organisations or organisations with Pacific representation, including the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, presented to the Court.
SPC provided technical assistance to Pacific Island countries for the development of their respective submissions to the ICJ, including through three regional workshops and direct bilateral support. The technical assistance enabled Pacific Island countries to prepare their legal and human rights arguments and receive scientific evidence, including evidence generated by SPC scientific divisions, to support their national positions. SPC also provided training for senior government representatives on presenting their cases to the Court’s judges in engaging ways. The countries were also supported to present their scientific evidence in compelling ways aligned with Pacific storytelling, including through data visualisation and personal testimonials that brought the lived experiences of Pacific communities to the fore.
Ultimately, the Court’s advisory opinion supported the position taken by Pacific Island countries and organisations. Pacific voices and Pacific leadership were therefore both at the forefront of this climate change initiative and instrumental in informing the content of the advisory opinion.
A critical element of the advisory opinion was its reliance on international human rights law – the ICJ said that within the body of international law, international human rights was “directly applicable” to the matters before it for consideration. The Court was clear – States have an obligation to “respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment”. To emphasise the point, the Court added that “… the protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights” and that this interdependency has been generally recognised since at least the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. The Court went on to provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of how human rights can be directly impacted by climate change, including the rights to life and health for current and future generations. The Court also established a clear picture of how human rights can be invoked to address the adverse impacts of climate change and in doing so, referenced many fundamental Pacific values such as family.
The ICJ’s reliance on human rights in its advisory opinion reflected the position of Pacific Island countries, namely that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. Through the advisory opinion, the Court also affirmed the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 11 July 2022, which declared that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a fundamental human right. That countries outside the Pacific also adopted the human rights argument before the ICJ confirms that human rights are indeed universal. The deep engagement of Pacific governments, youth and communities in the advisory opinion proceedings relating to what is commonly considered the most pressing issue in the region, can therefore be said to dispel the often-made argument that human rights are a ‘foreign concept’ to the Pacific, irrelevant to our lives.
Moving forward, the following five areas are potential avenues through which the Pacific can use the advisory opinion to more effectively address climate change:
- UN General Assembly Resolution. Following the advisory opinion, a resolution will be drafted for adoption by the UN General Assembly. This process will be led by Vanuatu and is an opportunity to reaffirm the standards, principles and legal framework referenced in the advisory opinion, including the human rights obligations in relation to climate change. The adoption of the resolution will strengthen global acceptance of the reality we face and help facilitate the change required to protect our planet from the climate crisis.
- Climate negotiations. The ICJ found that States must set progressive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that work towards keeping global temperatures below 1.5 degrees relative to pre-industrial levels. The advisory opinion can be used by the Pacific to campaign for ambitious NDC revisions at COP30 and beyond.
- UN Treaty Body Committees and other International Bodies. The importance of the composition of bodies such as the ICJ and UN Treaty Body Committees cannot be underestimated. These bodies are mandated to interpret and determine issues that shape the global climate response. Currently, there is not a single Pacific Island Country representative amongst the currently 170+ Treaty Body Committee members. The Pacific should ensure its voice is at the table within critical institutions such as these.
- UN Human Rights Council. The Pacific could use existing resolutions as well as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process to ensure States implement the advisory opinion. UPR is a peer-to-peer accountability mechanism among nations. High-emitting States can be held accountable by the Pacific in highlighting the human rights breaches they could be committing in relation to climate change and making recommendations on corrective action.
- Strategic Litigation. The advisory opinion widens the options for strategic litigation. A key component of the advisory opinion is the ICJ’s confirmation that restitution and compensation may be sought for “damages caused” by any failure of a State to comply with its obligation to protect and preserve the environment. The advisory opinion will be of particular relevance for States that accept the moral weight and persuasive authority of international law, as well as for national courts that have regard to international law when interpreting domestic laws or dealing with international treaties. Where Pacific Island countries decide to explore strategic litigation to this end, human rights law can provide a legal foundation for such cases.
- National Domestication. As stated above, the ICJ has delivered an authoritative interpretation of binding international law with moral weight and authority. In Pacific Island countries where it is open for courts to have regard to international law when deciding cases, there is an opportunity to seek to domesticate the ICJ advisory opinion through its application in court decisions to strengthen domestic jurisprudence and the application of the advisory opinion.
The advisory opinion has detailed a pathway to more effectively address the impacts of climate change. Bringing the global community along that pathway is a different matter, however. The Pacific played a leading role in securing the advisory opinion and it should play a leading role in climate action to give effect to it – this can be done through strengthening Pacific engagement with the international system, strengthening the enjoyment of human rights in the region, and continuing to ensure Pacific voices and lived experiences are brought to the fore at the global level. This will increase the region’s legitimacy and power at the global level and strengthen understanding of how human rights can improve all aspects of Pacific societies, not just in relation to climate change.
The distance to access the World Court has been a challenge for the region but the commitment by Pacific peoples to travel for up to three days straight to attend the ICJ proceedings is testament to the importance they attach to this issue. We must encourage the United Nations systems and global multilateral processes to come closer to the region so that our communities are better able to meaningfully access them in just and equitable ways now and into the future.
