A victory for Pacific people

In a landmark decision last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that countries have obligations to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and are legally accountable if they fail to act with due diligence.

Here, Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva looks at what the ruling means for climate change action in the Pacific.

 

“This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

It’s been a long and hard-fought battle since a group of Pacific law students at the University of the South Pacific conceived the idea of going to the world’s highest court to seek climate justice.

Their initiative was taken up by Pacific governments and ultimately adopted by the UN General Assembly, which passed a resolution in 2023 asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an advisory opinion on the obligation of states to protect the environment and the legal consequences of failing to do so.

The ICJ’s ruling says that states do indeed have an obligation to adopt measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In doing so, they must cooperate with one another to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

States also have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment, guided by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. This means that countries with higher emissions have a greater responsibility to mitigate the damage.

The court also ruled that a failure to meet these obligations would constitute “an internationally wrongful act”, opening the door to legal action against states, including demands for cessation, reparation, restitution and compensation.

A voice for the less powerful  

While advisory decisions aren’t legally binding, the ruling has effectively reshaped the global climate change landscape by giving more power to small states, especially those in the Pacific, to hold the big polluting countries politically, morally, and financially accountable.

The power dynamics have shifted. This is a victory for Pacific people, and it deserves to be celebrated.

It gives Pacific states a more powerful platform to assert themselves in the global arena. The big polluting nations — which also happen to be wealthier and more powerful — have often resisted calls from the Global South for meaningful commitments to cut emissions and move towards accelerated mitigation and adaptation.

The ICJ ruling strengthens the hand of Pacific Islands states — which are among the lowest greenhouse gas emitters in the world — to demand reparation, restitution and compensation from high-emitting fossil-fuel-producing countries.

The ruling also gives Pacific states a powerful moral, political and legal tool for negotiations during the annual COP meetings, starting with COP30 in Brazil this November, and COP31 in Australia next year. And it will also no doubt be high on the agenda of next month’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Honiara, where leaders are expected to put pressure on Australia and New Zealand to behave responsibly and commit to the broader Pacific-wide climate ambition of staying within the 1.5°C threshold.

Although both Australia and New Zealand supported the UN resolution seeking the ICJ opinion, they later took a more conservative view in their submissions to the ICJ. In line with other fossil fuel exporters like Saudi Arabia, the US and China, they argued that state obligations on climate change should be limited to the UN Climate Convention and the Paris Agreement.

The ICJ disagreed, affirming that other legal frameworks, including international human rights law, are also relevant in enforcing the obligation of countries to take action on climate change.

Shining light on the deep, dark web of climate denialism

The ruling also shines a light on countries that are known to be at the forefront of climate denialism, actively undermining progressive climate change policies.

For instance, the US, under President Trump, has dismantled almost every climate change institution and initiative. Other countries, including China, Brazil, and several petrostates (countries whose economies are heavily reliant on oil or gas), have faced criticism for expanding fossil fuel production.

But while it’s easy to identify “climate pariah” states, it’s often more difficult to expose the hidden web of climate change denialism and disinformation that operates under their protection. Of significance here is how these states are linked to fossil fuel companies, lobbyists, ultra-right conspiracy groups and right-wing media who work together to derail progressive climate change policies.

COP summits have become hotspots for these forces joining hands to influence the global climate narratives and policies. More than 500 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP26 in Glasgow. This number jumped to 600 at COP27 in Egypt, to more than 2,400 at COP28 in Dubai, and about 1,700 at COP29 in Azerbaijan. They easily outnumbered government representatives from many countries.

Lobbyists play a critical role in influencing legislation and policy on behalf of fossil fuel companies. In the US, fossil fuel lobbyists spent US$124.4 million in 2022 alone targeting federal lawmakers. Senators sitting on key committees have been lobbied via stock holdings in major fossil fuel companies.

Recent COP hosts have included petrostates, which have used the global gathering to advance their fossil fuel interests, stacking their COP teams with oil executives. For instance, the president of COP28 in Dubai was Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. His team struck 20 deals worth nearly US$100 billion during the conference.

Similarly, the president of COP29 in Azerbaijan was Mukhtar Babayev, a former executive of Azerbaijan’s state oil company, and the conference CEO also served on its board. Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, previously dubbed “Corruption Person of the Year”, has long used bribes  — or “caviar diplomacy” — to curry favour with EU politicians.

Mukhtar Babayev even attended the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga in August 2024, where Azerbaijan committed to funding Pacific delegates to COP29 in November of the same year, as part of its campaign for international support. Caviar diplomacy, it seems, has seeped into the Pacific.

Fossil fuel companies have also spent millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns, monitoring activists and organisations opposed to their activities, and using their financial power to manipulate media narratives and suppress climate science.

If states fail to address the negative influences of these forces on their climate policies, could they be held legally responsible? It’s a question worth exploring. While states are visible legal entities, much climate harm is facilitated by hidden networks that they either enable or ignore.

The future  

This is a chance to clean up the murky, multilayered and complex politics of climate change. The ICJ ruling gives the Global South — and Pacific states in particular — the political and moral tools to push for meaningful and transformative action on climate change.

For Pacific countries already bearing the brunt of massive and irreversible climate change, this could provide the leverage to secure reparations from major polluters. The legal process may be complex — proving causation won’t be easy — but the path is clearer now.

The ruling also requires countries to act in “good faith”. States must show transparency and genuine commitment in policymaking and seriously address the influence of fossil fuel corporations and their army of lobbyists. It’s time to scrutinise the hidden hands behind national climate change policies.

This is a moment for Pacific states to embrace their newfound power and use it wisely — for future generations, and for the planet. As the UN Secretary-General reminds us, it is indeed a “victory for the planet”. 

 

Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva is chair of the Research Committee on Climate Security and Planetary Politics of the International Political Science Association. The views in this piece do not represent those of the University of Canterbury, where he works.

E-Tangata, 2025