Annulled Unanimity: ICJ Opinion Falls Short for Pacific Islanders
While headlines trumpet a “unanimous” International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change, reality is messier: several judges registered dissenting views—opinions that matter deeply for Pacific Island states.
The 140-page ICJ “Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change” is an impressive document, but it demands time and follow‑through action to gauge its true impact. A sticking point is the broad use of the term climate change, which sweeps in diverse issues under one umbrella.
A close read of the dissents—especially those addressing sea‑level rise—offers clearer guidance for nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati. Somali judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf puts it this way:
“Burkina Faso and Tuvalu do not contribute — and have never contributed — to GHG (anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases) emissions on a scale remotely comparable to that of Germany or any other industrialized country. Their emissions are minimal to the point of being statistically negligible in the context of global GHG emissions, and a generalized statement such as that used in paragraph 277 of the Advisory Opinion does not do justice to their situation as compared to highly industrialized States, and unfairly attributes to them a much more important role in GHG emissions than they actually play. “
Below
Cook Islands urged to hold independence vote
Paragraph 277 is, frankly, a copout, saying that while states have different contributions (Tuvalu v Germany) then insists, “it is the sum of all activities that contribute to anthropogenic GHG emissions over time, not any specific emitting activity, which produces the risk of significant harm to the climate system.”
Tuvalu barely makes a cameo in the Opinion’s sea‑level rise section, yet its vulnerability is glaring. It says the ICJ recognises “in particular small island developing States, have faced and are likely to face greater levels of climate change-related harm owing to their geographical circumstances and level of development….
“A unique situation faced by small island States and low-lying coastal States was addressed by many participants that raised concerns over issues of sea level rise, which causes the coasts of such States to recede, thereby potentially affecting the outer limits of their maritime zones or even threatening their very existence. However, in the Court’s view, these matters do not fall within the scope of question (b).”
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Michael Field's South Pacific Tides to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.