By Sera Sefeti
As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) prepares to release its historic advisory opinion on climate change, momentum across the Pacific and the world continues to build. From legal teams and frontline communities to youth campaigners to regional and global coalitions, the push for climate justice has never been stronger.
This isn’t just about what happens in a courtroom. It’s about holding power to account. While judges at The Hague deliberate, those that join the campaign from the Pacific to the world over with amplified voices continue to beat their drums, mobilising—hosting webinars, issuing legal analyses, and reminding the world that what’s at stake isn’t abstract. It’s land. Culture. Lives.
Mansa Venkatachalam, a lawyer with the International Climate Justice and Human Rights team at Blue Ocean Law, representing Vanuatu alongside the OACPS and MSG shares what is at stake legally.
“There’s so much at stake,” she says. “This presents an opportunity for the Court to interpret how international law interacts with conduct that causes climate change and the harm it continues to inflict on people and states—now and in the future.”
Unpacking the Legal Stakes
“It is really important to stress here that since no other court is positioned to interpret the extent of the laws, the ICJ can with this advisory opinion is pivotal for an issue as cross cutting as climate change,” She said.
There are three broad legal questions that the ICJ can make or break depending on its advisory opinion according to Venkatachalam.
The discussion includes the scope of relevant conduct, the applicability of various legal regimes and the potential legal consequences of breaching these obligations.
She outlines the legal dimensions of “relevant conduct” as the who (states), what (actions and failures to act), and when (the period over which conduct is assessed).
“While the request and the advisory opinion are generally geared towards states and their obligations,” she says, “it is also worth examining how these obligations apply to states’ relationships with corporations under their jurisdiction and control.”
That nuance could have far-reaching consequences. If corporations are considered part of the chain of responsibility, state obligations could deepen.
Venkatachalam continues: “So, what is the law that applies to this conduct? How do these laws interact? And crucially—at what point does a breach occur, and what are the legal consequences?”
Despite the volume of legal submissions from states, she warns against getting bogged down. “We must focus on foundational legal issues—those are what will shape future litigation and accountability efforts.”
Defining the Harm—and Drawing the Line
A central function of the advisory opinion is to define the kinds of actions—or inaction—that have caused serious harm to the climate and the environment. But even that hasn’t been straightforward.
“Vanuatu, for example, identifies three types of relevant conduct: the provision of government subsidies for fossil fuels, the adoption of energy policies, and the omission to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below harmful levels,” Venkatachalam explains.
These examples are crucial, because they give the Court the opportunity to assess whether such conduct violates international law—and how far back such assessments can go.
Yet, she notes, even basic scientific facts were challenged in the courtroom.
“Simple questions like: What causes climate change? Is the science conclusive?—While the majority of states recognise anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the cause, some attempted to cast doubt on this link.”
What the legal team is hoping for is clarity—on when international obligations were breached, and how states can be held to account.
Generational Stakes: A Pacific Youth Leader’s Plea
While legal experts presented technical arguments, Pacific youth made sure the emotional and moral weight of the issue was not lost.
Cynthia Houniuhi, President and co-founder of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), brought this human dimension to the Court in her oral statement last year.
“Climate change is undermining our ability to uphold the sacred contract,” she said. “My people are nearing a critical point—on the verge of being completely engulfed by the rising seas. Without our land, our bodies and memories are severed from the fundamental relationships that define who we are.”
She made the stakes unmistakable:
“Those who stand to lose are future generations. Their future is uncertain—reliant upon the decision-making of a handful of large emitting states, which are responsible for climate change.”
From a Classroom Dream to a Global Reckoning
Six years ago, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific started what seemed like an impossible journey: to bring the climate crisis to the world’s highest court. Today, they’ve done just that.
Their movement, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), has helped shape the legal arguments now under review by the ICJ. Their submissions focus on:
•Applicable Law
•Transboundary Harm
•Human Rights
•Intergenerational Equity
•Fossil Fuel Phase-out
•Accountability
These legal foundations, rooted in Pacific experience, aim to change the global climate legal framework.
What Comes Next?
With the countdown now underway, the world waits to see whether the ICJ will affirm what Pacific communities have long known: that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but a human rights emergency, a legal failing, and a test of global justice.
Will the Court recognise these truths in its advisory opinion? Or will it fall short, dodging the difficult questions like so many polluting states have done before?
Either way, the Pacific isn’t waiting, the fight continues, because for those on the frontlines, justice delayed is already justice denied.
