Pacific islands once lived in harmony with the sea, now their home is threatened by rising sea levels. Caused largely by warming global temperatures linked to the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transport.

“Sea level rise is a huge problem for small island states with limited land for people to live on,” said Jule Schnakenberg, executive director of World’s Youth for Climate Justice, adding that it also limits people’s access to fresh water to drink, grow and grow. food, and cook with.

Campaigners say it is human rights abuses like these that motivated them to lobby governments to take legal action. These beginnings have culminated in a UN General Assembly decision to ask its highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), for a legal opinion on states’ obligations in relation to climate change.

Led by the Pacific island of Vanuatu, 98 countries from all over the world and 12 international organizations are set to give oral statements to the ICJ over the next two weeks. Judges at the court will issue an advisory opinion on the issue – and the legal consequences for governments that either fail to act or have taken actions that significantly harm the environment.

“For many of us, this is a journey that has taken us five years and we do not see this milestone as a goal, but rather as a checkpoint, a checkpoint because this is another step in the right direction in this fight for climate justice,” , said Siosiua Veikune, an activist with the group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change.

Hiding behind the Paris Agreement

Whether it’s droughts, floods or storms, the consequences of a hotter world are being felt across the planet. But it is sea level rise that significantly affects small island states such as those in the Pacific. There are the water levels rises almost twice as fast as the global average, with increases of 10 to 15 centimeters (4 to 6 inches) in the western Pacific since 1993, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

UN assessments put current emissions reduction targets pledged by nations under the international Paris Agreement on track for a global warming increase of up to 2.9 degrees Celsius. That’s well above the agreement’s stated limit of 2 degrees with efforts to keep warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).

“There is such an unconscious gap between where state policy needs to be and where it is and what justice and science require that is required (to be done) to avert climate catastrophe,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL ), told DW.

Legal experts say the advisory opinion will clarify states’ obligations under already existing legislation and go beyond the scope of the Paris Agreement.

“These big polluters are trying to hide behind Paris and basically say that’s all there is,” Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who represents Vanuatu in the ICJ climate hearings, told DW. She says the real question is whether the court will “confirm that there is more than Paris and that these other obligations also apply in parallel.”

The ICJ is one of three courts called upon to issue an advisory opinion on the obligation of states in relation to climate change.

In May, the International Court of Law of the Sea was the first to issue its advisory opinion on recognizing greenhouse gases as a form of marine pollution. It highlighted states’ obligations under the law of the sea as complementary to those under the Paris Agreement.

After hearings earlier this year have Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to issue its opinion on states’ obligations to protect human rights regarding climate change before the ICJ issues its opinion.

In addition to taking into account the two previous advisory opinions, experts say the ICJ will also consider other important climate rulings, such as the European Court of Human Rights ruling that Switzerland had violated the human rights of its citizens by missing previous emission reduction targets.

“We want to move towards a kind of rights-based climate action so that people know that they have a human right or many human rights, and that their states must take all the necessary measures (…) and do this based on the best available science (…) and if states don’t, you have a legal right to hold your government or corporation accountable,” Schnakenberg said.

A plan for climate disputes

Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, they have political and legal significance.

In October, the Government of Ireland decided to unilaterally suspend trade with Israel on products coming from the occupied West Bank following an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Legal experts say the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change could have similar political implications – especially as countries prepare to put forward new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the next UN climate summit in November 2025.

“That would probably be the ideal outcome, that the court only provides the course correction needed for the negotiations themselves, so then the ambition is raised,” said Wewerinke-Singh.

If that doesn’t come to fruition, Chowdhury said the opinion could provide a “legal blueprint” for international climate change law for potential litigation through national and international courts.

Currently, there are more than 2,000 climate cases pending against states and companies globally.

“Obviously you have to prove causation and it will depend on a case-by-case basis, but what the court can do is establish that the legal principle of redress and damages exists under international law,” Chowdhury added.

After years of fighting and finally making it to the ICJ hearings in The Hague, Schakenberg says she and the campaigns she works with in the Pacific and around the world are hopeful.

“Throughout this campaign, we’ve always said we’re stubborn optimists, and I think we just have to believe that change is possible,” she said.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker