Vanuatu pressing for climate justice; warns that the damage will be irreversible in five years

By James C. Pearce

Ahead of the third UN Ocean Conference this summer, the International Court of Justice is set to render a groundbreaking ruling on climate justice. Vanuatu is awaiting the court's decision.

At a press briefing on May 14, three speakers laid bare the challenges Vanuatu faces. In five years, the damage from climate change will be irreversible.

They argued that rising surf temperatures, reefs bleeding, fish leaving and the food chain being completely uprooted are among the many reasons for the ICJ to take this necessary legal step, they argued.

“The world is facing a turning point,” said Ralph Regenvanu, minister for climate change adaptation. “Reductions are a must, and crucial legal certainty will make it a binding duty.”

The minister continued to note that Vanuatu is on the frontline of a crisis it did not create. “There must be broader legal obligations, accountability and justice,” he added.

Margareta Wewerinke-Singh, from Blue Ocean Law and legal counsel to the government of Vanuatu, called for the ICJ’s ruling to be embedded in human rights.

The opinion, she added, must consider other legal routes, not only the available science, but the legal cases for loss and damage. Too much of climate change law, she noted, is "soft law"-- meaning, rarely applied.

In December 2024, 96 states from every region of the world, as well as 11 International Organizations, gathered at the ICJ in

The Hague to present arguments in its climate advisory opinion (AO) proceedings, on two defining questions: What are states’ legal obligations to address climate change, and what are the legal consequences for failing to meet them? 

Alongside those hearings, youth campaigners from the Pacific and across the world led powerful mobilizations, creating space for frontline voices to demand justice for climate harm.  

Vishad Prasad, campaign director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, used May’s press briefing to call for a clear, authoritative opinion from the ICJ.

Current actions, Prasad said, are divorced from the realities of those affected.

“These are not just abstract risks, but daily realities.”

At its core, this case is about accountability. 

According to May’s panel, that means more litigation being brought against private companies in the big states, setting stricter, clearer limits and applying consequences of clearly defined breaches of international law.

Wewerinke-Singh was keen to highlight how companies monopolize the courts and that the wishes of a privileged minority supersede the national interest of about every state.

“Cases should be codified. There should be more treaties, domestic policy and more engagement from civil societies," Wewerinke-Singh said.

The states that are responsible for the climate crisis and its devastating impacts have largely evaded legal responsibility. But climate-vulnerable nations and their legal experts made their voices heard at the ICJ, urging the court to affirm clear legal consequences for climate destruction.

Minister Regenvanu was asked if the U.S. should remain an exception, as the world’s largest polluter. He was unequivocal; the U.S. must be held accountable.

He said cases must go to the UN General Assembly and there must be a sustained diplomatic effort to ensure justice and accountability for climate-vulnerable nations.

These legal proceedings could become a turning point for climate justice, and counter decades of political inertia.

An ambitious advisory opinion could reshape global climate policy, reinforce human rights protections, and pave the way for major polluters to remedy and repair the damage they have caused. Such a ruling would be a huge win, but only the start to real change.

The hard work will come after and be an uphill battle. Litigation is long and costly. States already have longstanding duties under international law, not to cause or allow conduct in their territories that would cause significant environmental harm to other states.

One example is the Law of the Sea, which requires nations to reduce global emissions. But the language is vague and applied only at will. 

A favorable ruling likely means that nations would have to start individually, on a policy-by-policy basis.

Several countries as diverse as Vanuatu, Spain, Albania and Cameroon have already engraved the right to self-determination, to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as the rights of future generations.

These were powerfully argued before the Court. Alas, it is not so simple. Big polluters continue to spend millions of dollars seeking to deny or weaken their legal duties by rejecting or restricting the application of human rights treaty obligations to climate change. 

The United States, along with other big polluters, argued at the ICJ that climate obligations were limited to legal duties under the climate treaties, particularly the Paris Agreement, which it has now left.

The Vanuatu panellists agreed that real climate justice would come in the form of more cases coming before the courts due to a clear breach of international law and identifiable consequences.

At present, only a small number of cases are taken up. Vanuatu, Regenvanu said, is urging other nations to do more and ensure legal implementation. “Voluntary pledges are not enough.”