Australia is under scrutiny for its stance on climate change responsibilities in a pivotal case brought before the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Pacific nations, led by Vanuatu and supported by Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands, argue that high-emitting countries should bear legal obligations beyond the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The case stems from a long campaign by Pacific Island law students and a unanimous UN resolution seeking clarity on states’ legal duties to address climate change.
Vanuatu’s special envoy, Ralph Regenvanu, stated that major emitters causing the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions must be held accountable.
In its defense, Australia reaffirmed its commitment to the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), emphasizing these frameworks as central to global efforts. Australia’s Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue argued that international law should not exceed these agreements.
However, this position has drawn sharp criticism.
Australia’s stance sparks debate on global legal obligations for climate change.Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s legal counsel, Katrina Bullock, labeled Australia’s submissions as undermining Pacific neighbors, stating that compliance with existing treaties is inadequate to protect human rights and the environment.
The Australia Institute’s Leanne Minshull also voiced dissatisfaction, highlighting that many nations believe existing frameworks fail to address the urgent challenges of climate change.
Minshull criticized Australia’s reliance on technical arguments instead of seeking collective global solutions.
The ICJ’s decision, expected next year, will provide an advisory opinion that could influence future climate litigation and negotiations.
For Pacific nations, the stakes remain high as rising sea levels and extreme weather continue to threaten their existence.
This case underscores the urgent need for international cooperation and stronger accountability to combat the escalating climate crisis.