Pacific leaders see International Court's opinion as legal compass at COP30
- Admin
- 1 hour ago
- 4 min read
By Ron Rocky Coloma
This week's gathering of world leaders in Belém, Brazil, is "a very crucial climate conference," according to Vishal Prasad, the director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.
And he wasn’t exaggerating.
For the first time since the International Court of Justice issued its historic advisory opinion on climate obligations, the world entered the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference with the law on its side—and Pacific nations intended to use it.
COP30, which opened on Nov. 10 and will continue until Nov. 21, serves as a vital platform for building trust, advancing solutions, and reinforcing the collective commitment to a sustainable future.
For Pacific countries such as Vanuatu, Tuvalu and Fiji, this moment marks the culmination of years of youth advocacy and small-state diplomacy in a system long dominated by high-emitting powers.
The opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly in 2023, clarifies that protecting the planet from climate harm is not charity but a legal duty rooted in human rights and intergenerational justice.
“The court has made plain what our communities have always known,” Prasad said. “Protecting people and the planet from climate harm is a legal duty. It is grounded in human rights and the rights of future generations, and it is not an act of charity.”
He called the ruling “a compass and a yardstick” for climate negotiations, saying it provides clarity for what countries must do and how their actions should be measured.
“This year, we go to COP with a new catalyst for ambition,” he said. “The ICJ ruling gives us both legal clarity and moral urgency.”
Prasad outlined two key takeaways: first, that the ruling reaffirms the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the scientific authority for global policy, meaning countries must use every tool at their disposal to prevent climate harm. That includes regulating the entire fossil fuel life cycle – production, licensing, consumption and subsidies.
“If a policy or plan props up fossil fuels or conflicts with the 1.5-degree goal, it’s on the wrong side of international law,” he said.
The second takeaway involves finance. The ICJ confirmed that developed nations have a legal obligation to fund climate action, particularly adaptation and loss-and-damage efforts.
“Finance outcomes at COP30 are no longer discretionary,” Prasad said. “They are part of fulfilling states’ legal obligations.”
He emphasized that adaptation funding must increase in both scale and accessibility, and that the loss and damage fund should be fully capitalized with “simple, direct access for frontline communities.”
“The law has finally caught up to the science,” he added. “Finance shortfalls, fossil fuel subsidies and weak climate pledges are no longer abstract debates. They are potential violations of international obligations.”
For Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, the court’s opinion represents a new tool for vulnerable nations to hold the system accountable.
He said Vanuatu is now drafting a resolution to bring the ICJ opinion back to the UN General Assembly for adoption, hoping to operationalize its obligations across the UN system.
“The zero draft of that resolution should come out this week,” Regenvanu said, speaking from Port Vila, noting that it coincides with International Law Week at the UN.
“We are happy to put it out as a result of collaboration among a number of states in a core group working on the text. We want to take it forward to COP30 in Belém and then to the General Assembly by December or January," he added.
He admitted expectations for COP30 remain modest.
“Unfortunately, we have low expectations of COP again,” he said. “We expect some frustration that will add to the support for our resolution at the UNGA.”
Regenvanu described the broader context as “a period of geopolitical upheaval” where militarization is rising, aid spending is falling and international law is often disregarded.
“We are seeing the tipping points happening before our eyes,” he said, referencing coral bleaching events and extreme cyclones in the Pacific.
But he also pointed to signs of hope.
“The green energy transition is happening right now,” he said. “Renewables are cheaper, more accessible and they make sense for countries like ours that are far from traditional energy networks.”
He said the Pacific will continue to build alliances, both within and outside the formal UNFCCC process, to advance the ICJ opinion and ensure the 1.5-degree pathway remains central.
Despite frustration with past COP outcomes, Regenvanu said small nations have learned how to influence the system through targeted coalitions such as the High Ambition Coalition, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Powering Past Coal Alliance.
“These smaller coalitions are about raising ambition,” he said. “We are not substituting for the COP process. We are doing it to raise the bar, including at the COP.”
Regenvanu credited the Marshall Islands-led coalition that secured the 1.5-degree target in the Paris Agreement as proof that collective Pacific diplomacy can shape outcomes.
“The ICJ opinion is another way to get ambition,” he said. “It gives us a legally binding obligation recognized by the world’s highest court.”
When asked whether governments that approve fossil fuel projects without considering climate impacts–such as Australia–might now be violating international law, he was blunt: “The short answer is yes.”
Sindra Sharma, International Policy Lead at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network, said the ICJ ruling “hardwires” climate ambition into law.
“The court confirmed that duties under treaty law, customary law and human rights law are enforceable,” Sharma said. “Science no longer just guides policy. It sets the legal standard.”
As the world marks 10 years since the Paris Agreement, she said COP30 must “course-correct” to align all national climate plans, or NDCs, with the 1.5-degree target.
“COP30 should be the implementation COP,” Sharma said. “It must translate the legal clarity from the court into concrete decisions across every agenda item – finance, mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage.”'
She said the ruling reinforces that climate finance is not charity but an obligation, adding that the “shift from plans to proof” must begin now. “We need to turn empty funds into functioning lifelines,” she said.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly edition
