Global climate law shifts after Pacific islands push historic rulings

By Ron Rocky Coloma

When Pacific Island students secured a historic advisory opinion from the world’s highest court last July, the legal victory was immediate. What came next has been more complicated.

Across the Pacific, where rising seas, coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion are already reshaping daily life, climate advocates are now watching how governments respond after courts clarify their obligations. That question surfaced repeatedly during a recent international webinar that linked Pacific youth activists with European climate litigants and Irish environmental lawyers.

“Even when you win in court, it doesn’t always make anything happen,” said Isabelle Joerg, a Swiss climate advocate who addressed the session. Her warning resonated strongly with Pacific audiences familiar with slow-moving international commitments.

The July 2025 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice affirmed that states have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system and prevent foreseeable harm from greenhouse gas emissions. The case was driven by Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, a coalition founded by law students from climate-vulnerable island nations.

While the opinion is not legally binding, it carries significant legal weight and is already influencing climate litigation worldwide.

“Young generations, especially in the Pacific, have understood the urgency,” Joerg said. “They are pushing the legal system where politics has failed.”

The Pacific-led effort began in 2019, when students from island nations facing existential climate threats sought clarity under international law. Their campaign ultimately gained backing from Pacific governments and brought the issue to The Hague.

The ICJ opinion declared climate change an “existential problem of planetary proportions” and confirmed that human rights obligations apply to climate harm, a point Pacific advocates have emphasized for years as entire communities face displacement.

For many in the region, the ruling validated lived experience.

“Without our land, our bodies and memories are severed from the fundamental relationships that define who we are,” said Cynthia Houniuhi, a Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change representative, during the ICJ hearings.

Yet the ruling also raised a familiar Pacific question: How does international law translate into real-world protection?

That uncertainty is playing out in Europe, offering both encouragement and caution for Pacific nations.

In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland failed to adequately protect its population from climate-related harm. The case was brought by KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, an association of women over 65 who argued that extreme heat posed a direct threat to their health.

Joerg said the group deliberately grounded its case in medical evidence.

“There is a considerably higher risk of fatality for elderly women during heat waves,” she said. “That was central to our claim.”

While the court largely ruled in their favor, Switzerland has yet to implement meaningful changes. The case now sits in an ongoing review process with the Council of Europe.

“So far, nothing has happened,” Joerg said. “The only real pressure is reputational.”

For Pacific advocates, the Swiss experience underscores a critical lesson.

“Courts can clarify responsibility,” Joerg said. “But enforcement remains the biggest challenge.”

That challenge is also unfolding in Ireland, where Friends of the Irish Environment is awaiting a Court of Appeal ruling challenging the government’s Climate Action Plan 2023.

Judy Osborne, a director of the group, said the case reflects a broader global pattern familiar to Pacific observers.

“We have strong laws on paper,” Osborne said. “But implementation is where things break down.”

Ireland’s climate minister recently acknowledged that current policies are insufficient to meet national targets. Osborne said that admission highlights the gap between legal obligation and political action.

“The problems don’t start with the courts,” she said. “They start with poor decisions that go uncorrected.”

Resource speakers have repeatedly returned to the Pacific as a moral and legal reference point.

Joerg cited Pacific island students when discussing the future of climate litigation.

“They went to the International Court of Justice because they had no other avenue left,” she said. “That should concern all of us.”

Pacific advocates have emphasized that climate harm is not theoretical. It is already reshaping coastlines, economies and cultural survival. Legal clarity, they argue, is essential not only for future cases but for strengthening claims for adaptation support and accountability.

Still, speakers cautioned against viewing litigation as a standalone solution.

“We should not feel personally responsible alone,” Joerg said. “Corporations, financial institutions and states must be held accountable.”

As 2026 approaches, Pacific activists are watching closely how international rulings are absorbed into national policy, if at all. The ICJ opinion has opened legal doors, but whether governments walk through them remains uncertain.

For now, Pacific voices continue to shape the global climate law conversation, not as observers, but as architects.

“What sustains us,” Joerg said, “is that younger generations, especially in the Pacific, are continuing this fight.”

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition