Vanuatu climate change and marine conservation expert Dr Christopher Bartlett says the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change strengthens the legal footing for Pacific nations to hold major emitters to account for climate harms, even if those countries have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. The advisory opinion, he explains, clarifies the law that all states must follow, covering obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, human rights law, environmental law, and customary law, giving Pacific governments a clear path to act with ambition and insist that high-emitting partners do the same.
Bartlett notes that the ruling provides a framework for “best practice” through robust national climate plans. If Pacific states meet their Nationally Determined Contributions, they can, in turn, require historically responsible nations to meet theirs as well. He adds that if a country’s NDCs push beyond 1.5 degrees or back new fossil fuel projects and subsidies, the opinion frames such moves as internationally wrongful acts under the law.
A key takeaway, Bartlett says, is that the advisory opinion closes a dangerous loophole. Some large emitters have left the Paris Agreement, which could have left them unaccountable. The court’s stance is that obligations persist inside and outside the Paris Agreement, and even if a state has departed, it remains bound by customary obligations to prevent harm.
On climate finance, the opinion positions funding as an obligation rather than a gift, providing a new lens for discussions that should help the Pacific secure support for addressing harms and injuries caused by climate change.
Vanuatu has begun weaving the ICJ opinion into its domestic policy work. Next week, the National Advisory Board is set to endorse NDC 3.0, with every target reviewed to ensure alignment with the court’s outlined international legal obligations. While a decision on pursuing litigation remains open, Bartlett stresses that the opinion creates viable pathways for vulnerable nations to seek redress through international forums if needed.
The opinion’s primary purpose, he says, is for nations to self-assess and raise ambition ahead of COP30. It is not merely a tool to hold others to account; it is a mandate for each state to examine its own commitments and to do better because it is legally required to do so.
The broader significance is clear beyond Vanuatu. The advisory opinion has been described as a milestone by regional and international partners, reinforcing climate justice in a universal risk framework and urging urgent action through strengthened cooperation. It aligns with Pacific initiatives such as the Boe Declaration and the Blue Pacific 2050 Strategy, supporting a push for stronger climate action, loss and damage finance, and greater accountability of major polluters at upcoming negotiations and forums.
SPREP has highlighted Vanuatu’s leadership in driving this legal clarifications process, which gathered unprecedented global engagement, including thousands of statements and wide participation from numbers of states. The Pacific Islands Forum and regional partners emphasize that the ruling provides a solid basis to advocate for accelerated climate action, enhanced financing for loss and damage, and stronger regional dialogues on climate justice. Youth leaders and community advocates have also played a pivotal role, reinforcing the Pacific’s demand for concrete commitments at COP30 and beyond.
Looking ahead, many Pacific leaders see the advisory opinion as a catalyst for meaningful action. It offers a legal compass for advancing ambitious NDCs, mobilizing finance for climate resilience, and pursuing accountability for emissions that harm vulnerable communities. While the ruling itself is advisory, its influence on policy, finance, and international diplomacy could help shift timelines, shape negotiations, and inspire broader adoption of enforceable climate standards.
Summary: The ICJ advisory opinion is being framed in the Pacific as a turning point for climate justice. It clarifies state obligations across treaty and customary law, closes loopholes for states that have left Paris, reframes climate finance as an obligation, and invites nations to self-asses and elevate ambition ahead of COP30. For Vanuatu and its partners, the opinion strengthens the legal tools and political will needed to push for faster climate action, robust finance for loss and damage, and greater accountability of major emitters in the global effort to safeguard the region’s future.
Context and analysis: This development underscores a shift toward legally grounded climate accountability in the Pacific, with regional leadership and youth involvement driving a stronger push for ambitious NDCs, loss-and-damage finance, and enforceable action at international forums. It also signals potential pathways for peaceful, legal channels to address climate harms while reinforcing the moral imperative to protect vulnerable communities and marine environments.
Leave a comment