The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on climate change has been hailed as a historic victory for Pacific youth and Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), providing new legal and moral grounds to hold major polluting nations accountable for their climate inaction.
Speaking at the Moana Blue Pacific Pavilion during COP30 in Belém, Brazil, Vishal Prasad on Thursday, Campaign Director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), described the ruling as a “game changer” that strengthens the region’s fight for climate justice.
“The ICJ’s clarification gives our advocacy the power of the law,” Mr Prasad said.
“The Pacific now has a legal basis and the moral weight to demonstrate immense leadership through the moral voice of our people.” he said.
He said the advisory opinion provides both a “moral and legal blueprint” for scaling up global ambition, describing it as a “blueprint, compass, yardstick, and catalyst” for those demanding concrete climate action.
Prasad outlined two key areas where the ICJ opinion strengthens Pacific advocacy — emissions reduction and climate finance.
On Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), he said the opinion reinforces that countries are legally obliged to prevent, reduce, and phase out greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science and principles of equity.
“Any NDC that is incompatible with the 1.5°C target is now politically weak,” he stated. “Countries must be held accountable to raise their targets, timelines, and fossil fuel phase-out commitments.”
In terms of climate finance, Mr Prasad said the ruling empowers Pacific nations to argue that the failure of developed countries to provide predictable, grant-based funding for adaptation, loss, and damage is a breach of international obligations — “not a negotiable oversight.”
He added that the opinion now serves as a “shared legal reference” when countries present weak climate commitments or evade financial responsibilities.
Looking ahead, Prasad urged Pacific negotiators to “leverage the power of this ruling” at upcoming climate negotiations.
“We need our negotiators to carry and champion the key messages of the ICJ ruling. The outcomes at COP30 must align with the Advisory Opinion,” he said.
He acknowledged that there has already been pushback from some nations but said Pacific youth remain determined.
“We must go forward with a united voice that stands up for the law — for our islands, for our people, and for our shared future,” he said.
Meanwhile Pacific climate negotiators heading into the crucial COP30 talks are now armed with an unprecedented legal mandate, following the landmark Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States regarding climate change.
The ICJ’s ruling—which clearly states that countries have a duty to protect the climate system and prevent significant harm to the environment—is hailed as a powerful tool for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including the Solomon Islands, to push for ambitious action on the global stage.
The documents reveal the AO is a decisive legal resource, directly applicable across major COP agenda items like Finance, Mitigation, Loss and Damage, and the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP).
The ICJ’s ruling provides clarity and legal teeth on several critical fronts:
1. Finance: A Binding Obligation for Developed Countries
The AO provides a strong legal basis to demand climate finance. Developed countries now have a “binding obligation” to provide climate finance under the Paris Agreement.
“Developed countries have a legally binding obligation under Art. 9 of the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance and it should be at a level that enables the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement, under Art. 2 (para. 365).”
Furthermore, states that continue to pursue fossil fuel subsidies and unsustainable actions are risking an “internationally wrongful act,” directly undercutting the goals of the Paris Agreement.
2. Mitigation and Adaptation: Do Your ‘Highest Possible Ambition’
The Court confirmed that countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) must reflect their “highest possible ambition.” This is not a suggestion, but a requirement to avoid setting a level that would create dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Crucially for islands facing rising seas, the AO reinforces obligations on adaptation. The ICJ explicitly noted that adaptation needs are underfunded and pointed to the US$160 – US$340 billion per year gap estimated by the Adaptation Gap Report. The ruling can be used to strengthen demands for greater financial support for adaptation measures.
3. Loss and Damage: Responsibility to Remedy
For the Pacific, where communities are already experiencing devastating climate impacts, the AO confirms a legal right to remedy.
The ICJ confirmed that States have the “responsibility to remedy harm they have caused through conduct in breach of their legal obligations.” The damage from climate change will escalate with every increment of global warming, and states must do more than just address issues of liability—they must also address “reparatory mechanisms.”
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade, Peter Shanel Agovaka, has welcomed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, describing it as a decisive outcome for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including Solomon Islands.
Minister Shanel made the remarks during his visit to New York, USA, in September, where he represented Solomon Islands at the Palau–Germany Lunch on International Climate Policy held on Monday, 22 September.
The Advisory Opinion, delivered by the ICJ on 23 July 2025, confirmed that obligations to address climate change are legally binding under international law — not merely political pledges. The Court affirmed that all states must act with due diligence to prevent serious harm to the climate system, uphold human rights, and protect both present and future generations.
Of particular significance to Solomon Islands, the Court also recognised that the principle of non-refoulement applies to individuals displaced by climate change.
This means climate-affected persons cannot be forced to return to territories rendered uninhabitable — a position strongly advocated by Solomon Islands in its submissions to the Court on climate mobility and displacement.
“The ICJ Opinion is a victory for SIDS and a call for urgent global solidarity,” Minister Shanel said.
“It strengthens our case for accountability from major emitters and for financial and technical support to help our people adapt and survive in the face of climate impacts.” he added.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion, initiated by Pacific students and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, clarifies the legal obligations of states to address climate change and protect the rights of present and future generations — a defining moment in the global climate justice movement.
