I came across this article in what could become a defining moment for international law and climate justice, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion on the legal obligations of states to act on climate change. What makes it even more powerful for us is that Vanuatu—our small island nation—helped lead this global push, backed by 27 committed law students from the Pacific. The result? A major legal breakthrough that could change how the world deals with climate responsibility.
Environmental lawyer and writer Albert Bates unpacks the ruling in a powerful two-part series. In Part One and Part Two, he breaks down not just what the Court decided, but also the strong messages from the judges who wanted the ruling to go even further. It’s a timely and eye-opening read from our part of the world.
Part One – A Legal Door Opens
In Part One, Bates explores the momentous ruling handed down by the ICJ on July 26, 2025. Judge Iwasawa Yuji read the Court’s conclusion: states must not simply adopt climate policies, they must take concrete, measurable action—or be held legally accountable.
The Court made it clear: states cannot use “best effort” excuses or hide behind voluntary treaties like the Paris Agreement. If a country has the capacity to prevent environmental harm and fails to do so, that inaction becomes an internationally wrongful act.
This marks a departure from vague diplomatic language. The Court shifted toward clarity and enforceability, giving smaller and vulnerable nations like Vanuatu a stronger legal standing in the fight for climate justice.
Part Two – Voices from the Bench
In Part Two, Bates turns the spotlight on the concurring and dissenting opinions of several judges—many of whom argued the Court didn’t go far enough.
💬 Judge Dire Tlasi:
Used a Setswana proverb—“to pour cold shade over oneself”—to express disappointment at the Court’s reluctance to fully embrace bold climate obligations. She emphasized that while the Court played its role, real climate action requires political courage and global prioritization over war and profit.
💬 Judge Bogdan Aurescu:
Voiced regret that the Court didn’t explicitly declare the human right to a healthy environment as customary international law, despite widespread state practice.
💬 Judge Xue Hanqin:
Brought in hard numbers from the IPCC to underscore how climate impacts disproportionately hurt the world’s poorest. She stressed the need to uphold “common but differentiated responsibilities”—a foundational principle of climate justice.
“The Full Panoply” of Legal Consequences
The Court didn’t just confirm that countries have obligations—it clarified that if they breach them, they’re liable under the “full panoply” of international law. That includes:
- Restitution
- Reparations
- Satisfaction
- Guarantees of non-repetition
This language now strengthens the legal footing for climate litigation, opening the door to future lawsuits against governments and corporations alike.
From the Courtroom to the Microphone
Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, on her podcast Outrage and Optimism, hailed the ruling as a turning point. In conversation with Julian Aguon, a lawyer for the law student plaintiffs, they agreed: this wasn’t just a door creaking open. It was a legal breakthrough, with the Court firmly rejecting arguments that shielded polluters from responsibility.
Why It Matters for Vanuatu—and the World
For a country like Vanuatu—among the most climate-vulnerable in the world—this ruling is more than symbolic. It sets a precedent that small states can challenge the status quo. It gives weight to climate justice claims, and it equips future generations with the legal tools to demand accountability from the world’s biggest polluters.
This isn’t just a win for the Pacific. It’s a victory for all vulnerable communities, young people, and climate defenders demanding a livable future.
Mattdotvu 
Leave a comment