Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) Director has described the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a historic legal milestone, but warned that legal recognition alone will not shield vulnerable communities from the worsening impacts of climate change.
Speaking during a public webinar titled “From Legal Principle to Action: The ICJ Advisory Opinion and the UN General Assembly Resolution,” Vishal Prasad reflected on the significance of the court’s findings and the responsibility now facing governments and international institutions.
“In so many ways, we find ourselves currently in a more complex, more challenging world than we did yesterday,” Prasad said.
The ICJ advisory opinion, widely regarded as a landmark development in international climate law, clarifies that states have legal obligations under international law in relation to climate change and the protection of the environment.
For Pacific Island nations, which have been among the most vocal advocates for stronger climate accountability, the ruling represents years of legal advocacy and youth-led campaigning.
Prasad said the case was deeply informed by the lived realities of communities already experiencing the impacts of climate change.
He described travelling to some of Fiji’s most remote communities to gather testimonies and evidence that were later submitted as part of the ICJ proceedings.
“We heard some of the most heart-wrenching stories of what it means to live with the impacts of climate change day in and day out,” he said.
“You’ll see in those testimonies the pain of villages who have been severed from their ancestral land. You will hear about cultural rituals and practices that are almost gone, just like the harvest that once filled village grounds every harvest season.”
Prasad said these testimonies highlight that climate change is not only an environmental crisis but also a cultural and human rights issue affecting Pacific communities.
He reiterated the words of human rights lawyer Julian Aguon, who told the court during oral pleadings that affected communities have “lost nearly everything that has, since time immemorial, formed their very essence as peoples.”
For Prasad, the ICJ’s unanimous finding that states have obligations under international law validates what frontline communities have long understood.
“These communities on the front lines have always known that the crisis they face is not just unfortunate, it is unjust as well,” he said.
However, he cautioned that the legal clarity provided by the ICJ ruling will not by itself protect communities already facing rising seas, stronger storms, and environmental loss.
“It does not rebuild homes after cyclones, it does not restore what has already been lost, and it does not automatically change the behaviour of the states most responsible for this crisis,” Prasad said.
He said the next critical step will be translating the court’s legal findings into meaningful political action.
According to Prasad, an upcoming resolution before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) could play an important role in ensuring that the advisory opinion leads to concrete outcomes.
“This resolution is a bridge between what the law has made clear and what the international community now chooses to do with that clarity,” he said.
“If states have obligations, those obligations must be implemented. If rights are being harmed, those harms must be addressed.”
Prasad warned that without strong follow-through, there is a risk the advisory opinion could be praised publicly while governments continue with business as usual.
“We’ve seen that there’s always the risk that after a landmark legal development, states praise it publicly and then continue with business as usual,” he said.
“A strong UNGA resolution can help ensure that that does not happen. It can send a clear message that the opinion is not just an abstract statement, it is guidance for action across the UN system and for states themselves.”
He said the resolution could also help generate political momentum and institutional follow-up.
“Strong change can happen when legal developments, diplomatic processes and public mobilisation reinforce one another.
“The ICJ advisory opinion provides the legal grounding. This General Assembly resolution can provide the political vehicle for action. Public engagement can provide the force that keeps both of these moving.”
If effectively implemented, he added, the resolution could help embed the court’s findings into national policy discussions and future climate negotiations.
“It can help embed the opinion into the work of UN bodies, into national discussions and into future climate policy. And it creates space for those most affected to shape what comes next.”
Prasad also emphasised the role of public mobilisation and youth engagement in maintaining momentum behind the ruling.
“Progress does not happen simply because the truth has been spoken,” he said. “Progress happens when people organise around the truth and refuse to let it be ignored.”
Civil society groups, youth movements and frontline communities, he added, will play a crucial role in ensuring governments act with ambition and accountability.
“Civil society has always played a crucial role in climate justice movements; documenting harms, advancing legal arguments, and shifting public narratives, mobilising across borders, and insisting that international law must serve people, not just power.
“This process is not only about states talking to states. It is also about whether communities, especially those on the frontlines, can see their realities reflected in global action.”
Prasad urged supporters to engage directly with governments to build momentum for the resolution.
“We can write letters, request meetings, issue public statements, brief diplomats, or work with our regional and national allies to help build momentum towards the vote,” he said.
“There are many resources available to support this; advocacy packs, template letters, key messages and social media materials that can all be utilised.”
He also called for ambition in the final resolution, warning that weak commitments could undermine the significance of the advisory opinion.
“We need to organise for ambition. Not just any resolution will do.
“A weak resolution that empties the advisory opinion of its force is not enough. We need one that centres human rights, intergenerational equity, accountability, and the realities of those already facing immense loss and damage.”
Even after adoption, Prasad said continued advocacy will be essential.
“Adoption will not be the finish line,” he said. “We will need to monitor implementation. We will need to keep pressing institutions and governments to act with ambition and accountability.”
Looking ahead to upcoming international climate negotiations, including COP31, Prasad said the advisory opinion must be brought into multiple global platforms to ensure its findings influence climate decision-making.
“We need to keep doing the work of bringing the advisory opinion into as many spaces and platforms as possible,” he said. “COP31 provides that opportunity.”
He expressed hope that the court’s findings, backed by action from the UNGA, will make it increasingly difficult for governments to ignore their legal obligations on climate change.
“The ICJ has provided the blueprint,” Prasad said. “Now it’s time for the world to build using it,” he said.
