The case, led by Vanuatu on behalf of several Pacific nations and developing states—such as Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands—argues that developed countries have legal responsibilities beyond the existing UN frameworks. Although the case does not specify which countries fall under the definition of high emitters, the goal is to challenge the legal accountability of those most responsible for the climate crisis.
The hearing, which began on Monday, follows years of advocacy by law students from Pacific island countries and a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution urging the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on the obligations of states to address climate change and the potential legal consequences for non-compliance.
Australia's Position
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment, stated that responsibility for the climate crisis lies with a few high-emitting countries, which have produced the majority of greenhouse gas emissions while standing to lose the least from rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
In its submissions, the Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, both of which aim to limit global warming to well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C. However, Australia stressed that the agreements' goals are non-binding and should not be extended beyond their existing legal frameworks.
Australia's solicitor-general, Stephen Donaghue, argued that customary international law should not impose further obligations beyond the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, particularly regarding transboundary harm from greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite this, Jesse Clarke, the Australian government's general counsel, expressed admiration for Vanuatu's leadership in addressing the climate crisis, acknowledging the profound threat climate change poses to small island states, including those in the Pacific. He emphasized the need for urgent collective action to tackle the crisis.
Reactions and Criticism
Greenpeace Australia Pacific's general counsel, Katrina Bullock, criticized Australia's position, arguing that its submissions undermined its Pacific neighbors. She contended that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement were created to protect people, not shield states like Australia from accountability. Bullock stressed that while compliance with these treaties is important, it is not sufficient to safeguard human rights and the environment.
Leanne Minshull, strategic director of The Australia Institute, pointed out that the UN General Assembly's request for the ICJ's opinion reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the current multilateral agreements. She noted that, in her view, Australia's defense of existing frameworks suggested it believed the issue was already under control—something she found at odds with the reality of the climate crisis faced by both Australians and Pacific islanders.
The ICJ Hearing
The two-week ICJ hearing is set to conclude with a judgment expected next year. While ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, experts believe this opinion will serve as a key reference in future climate litigation and international climate negotiations. The outcome could shape future climate accountability, potentially influencing both legal and policy frameworks globally.