'We have to try everything': Vanuatu envoy taking climate fight to ICJ
The landmark case has given Ralph Regenvanu a front row seat to history.
As Vanuatu's environment minister, he has taken the decades-long climate fight by Pacific nations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, hoping to safeguard their islands' survival.
Regenvanu has called the case among the most consequential "in the history of humanity".
A ruling could come as early as next month.
This interview, conducted by AFP on the sidelines of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, has been edited for length and clarity:
Q: Why did Vanuatu go to the ICJ?
A: "We thought it was necessary to take a legal approach to the issue of climate change because we feel that the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) process, which has been going for 30 years, has not done anywhere near enough.
"We agreed to ramp down greenhouse gas emissions. We've seen the highest levels ever just recently. We've talked about climate finance. We haven't seen that. These pledges that were made in Paris? We've not seen them having any effect.
"And so we wanted to see if we could get international law to actually start to impose some requirements."
Q: Has it worked?
"This request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ has been historic. It was the first request from the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion that was unanimous. No country opposed requesting this.
"It has also mobilised youth. There's this global climate justice movement of youth now, and we have many of them here (in Nice). It's really raised the consciousness and political savvy of youth to engage with these kinds of processes.
"A lot of countries would talk about what they're doing on climate change. But when we got to the court, it became very clear that they weren't prepared to do what they were talking about. So it exposed the hypocrisy of a number of countries as well."
Q: Do you think others will take the legal route?
A: "We're going to have to do a far greater range of things outside these UN processes -- in courts, in each and every fora we can find, to push for real climate action.
"We went to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea -- we got an advisory opinion. We're waiting for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the same question: the obligations of states to prevent greenhouse gas emissions, and what are they consequences if they don't.
"Along with Fiji and Samoa, we've submitted a resolution to the Rome Statute -- the International Criminal Court -- for a new crime of ecocide to be created. That's in process.
"We will continue to call for the strongest action in all fora including this one, the United Nations Ocean Conference.
"Anything and everything we can -- because what we're doing is not enough."
Q: Why keep going if you're constantly disappointed?
A: "Going to the climate COPs is a very depressing exercise. Last year, for example, Papua New Guinea said we aren't going anymore. I could perfectly understand that.
"The problem is, when we're not at the table, we're on the menu. And so we have to be there, so people see us and realise -- and hopefully have a little bit of conscience -- that there are these people in the world who are going to perish as a result of your actions."
Q: Why is this ocean summit important?
"The ocean has been feeding us. It's been our spiritual home. It's been our highway. It has been the basis of our cultural heritage, our identity. We've been surviving off the ocean for as long as we've existed, which is thousands of years.
"And we see the change, and the change is impacting us. We know that if we don't address climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and if we don't take serious steps to reverse global warming, but also keep the biodiversity that has always been sustaining us, it threatens our very existence."
np/klm/giv
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Seniors Need To Know About Congress's Big Budget Bill
President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speak to the press about the ... More so-called "big, beautiful bill." (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) The massive 2025 budget bill, which Congress passed on July 3, would slash safety net programs for older adults, people with disabilities, and their family caregivers, though many of those cuts may not take effect for years. At the same time, the bill would lower taxes for some older adults. The measure would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, largely by cutting the federal payments for the program and imposing a work requirement on many recipients, perhaps including some family caregivers. It would block a Biden-era rule to require minimum staff to care for patients and residents of nursing homes while approving more spending to deport immigrants, which likely will make the current severe shortage of care workers much worse. It also would increase the standard deduction for older adults, but excludes a tax break for family caregivers once promised by President Trump and fails to enhance tax-free savings that can be used to pay for long-term care. Here is what some key provisions will mean for older adults and people with disabilities: Medicaid: About 7.2 million seniors and 4.8 million younger people with disabilities are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare. More than half of Medicaid dollars are spent on them. Medicaid is run by the states but about 70 percent of its funding comes from the federal government. The budget bill would slash Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. About $336 billion of those cuts would come from requiring states to impose work requirements on recipients, about $60 billion from increased paperwork faced by recipients, and about $120 billion from changes to so-called provider taxes, which effectively reduce federal contributions to the program. Work requirement: Older adults and young people with disabilities generally are exempt from the work requirements. But because the law is so vaguely written, family caregivers of older adults may not be. This would require low-income people to give up their Medicaid if they must leave a job to care for a loved one. In addition, experts expect that many eligible people will lose their benefits because they are unable to comply with onerous new paperwork requirements to prove they are exempt from the work rules. States must impose work requirements by December, 2026, right after that year's congressional elections. They may do so sooner or could request a reprieve from the federal government until 2028 under certain circumstances. Cuts to federal Medicaid contributions: The bill limits the ability of states to impose taxes on Medicaid providers, such as nursing homes and hospitals. That effectively will reduce the amount of Medicaid spending funded by the federal government, though the provider tax curbs will not take effect until 2028. Other changes limit federal contributions to states that expanded Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Those additional payments end on January 1. All these cuts in federal Medicaid payments will force states to either cut benefits, limit eligibility, or raise taxes to make up for the lost federal dollars. Since few states are likely to raise taxes, they'll be forced to limit Medicaid services in some way. Crucially, states are required by federal law to provide long-term care in nursing homes. They are allowed to provide home-based care—and all do-- but these are optional benefits and not required. As a result, states are likely to respond to cuts in federal Medicaid payments by either reducing their home and community-based care or by cutting their payments to nursing homes. Medicaid home and community-based care: Current law generally says states can provide home-based care only to people who otherwise would be living in a nursing home or other institutional setting. The bill gives states new flexibility to provide home-based care to people who do not need an institutional level of care, as long as they do not increase existing waiting lists for community care to do so. The bill includes a small amount of money for states to implement this expansion. But given the massive cuts in federal payments, it seems improbable that states will be expanding HCBS anytime soon. In addition, the provision would not take effect until 2028. Care workers: The bill would effectively repeal a Biden Administration rule aimed at requiring nursing homes to maintain minimum levels of staffing, including 24/7 RNs on site. Industry groups sued to block the rule and a federal district judge in Texas halted it. At the same time, the budget bill would increase spending by more than $100 billion for border security and the Trump Administration's efforts to deport immigrants. Trump's promised mass deportations will make the existing shortage of medical and direct care workers much worse, increasing costs for families. Taxes: The budget bill raises the standard deduction for older adults by $6,000. In 2025, a couple claiming the ordinary standard deduction, the current additional standard deduction for seniors, and the new standard deduction, could receive a total standard deduction of $46,7000. The senior deduction would be available even to those who itemize their deductions. The extra deduction would be available only through 2028. It replaces President Trump's campaign promise to exempt Social Security benefits from tax, an idea never seriously considered by Congress. The Tax Policy Center estimates that fewer than half of seniors would benefit from the higher standard deduction. Two other important tax provisions never made it to the final bill. A caregiver tax credit, which President Trump promised during the campaign, never was pushed by the White House and was not included in any version of the budget bill. And a House provision intended to double contributions to tax-free Health Savings Accounts was dropped. Those HSAs can be used to pay long-term care insurance premiums and for some care. The big budget bill will have profound effects on older adults, especially the poorest of them. But, at least in some states, they may not feel much of the impact for a while.
Travel Weekly
2 hours ago
- Travel Weekly
A clean slate at the Hawaii Tourism Authority
Christine Hitt All members of the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) board of directors have resigned, clearing the way for Gov. Josh Green to make new appointments. In June, Green asked for all board members, including recently appointed board chair Todd Apo, to resign. As of July 2, they have all done so. It is expected that the governor will appoint new board members as the next step in his plan for a fresh start. A lot has changed at the Hawaii Tourism Authority in a few short months. Following the March departure of interim president and CEO Daniel Nahoopii and board chair Mufi Hannemann, a bill introduced in the legislature, which would restructure HTA, advanced. Senate Bill 1571 passed the house and senate in May and was signed by Hawaii Gov. Josh Green into law as Act 132 on May 29. Some of the changes to Hawaii Tourism Authority's structure include stripping the board of its power, by changing it from "a policymaking" board to an "advisory board of directors." The director of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism has been removed as a member of the board; and the new law allows the House speaker and Senate president to appoint a member. The board still has the ability to hire and fire its CEO, but the governor must approve the appointment "subject to the advice and consent of the Senate." The president and CEO also reports to the governor, according to the bill's text.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
A Real New Middle East Is Emerging
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With the White House leading the charge to bring about a long-term ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the hostages, and following the cessation of open and direct conflict between Israel and Iran, there is hope for optimism in a region where pessimism is the default setting. Despite the heavy toll of the recent conflicts, a new geopolitical landscape is taking shape in the Middle East—one that holds the promise of lasting transformation. Call it cautious optimism, or even premature—but the signs are difficult to ignore. In many ways, Israel's confrontation with Iran, along with the war that began on October 7, marks a tectonic shift in Middle Eastern dynamics. It began with a fateful decision by Yahya Sinwar, Hamas' leader in Gaza—a decision that set off a cascade across the so-called axis of resistance. What seemed like an isolated, if brutal, escalation now looks more like the first domino in the unraveling of an entire regional alignment. President Donald Trump meets with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4, 2025. President Donald Trump meets with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4, 2025. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images Even if the Islamic Republic of Iran remains intact, the aftermath of these conflicts will likely leave it severely weakened. Iran may emerge stripped of the vast arsenal it has invested in for decades—its nuclear program, its long-range missile capabilities, and its sprawling proxy networks in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Yemen. Trillions of dollars in regional influence may now be lost. For Israel, the immediate imperative is to bring the Gaza war to a close and secure the return of the hostages. But even that task is now shaped by a dramatically altered regional risk landscape. The deterrence equation has changed, as has Israel's room for strategic maneuvering. Far more significant, however, is the opportunity this moment presents for long-term realignment. The tectonic plates of the Middle East are shifting. The weakening of Iran and its allies creates space for an expanded circle of normalization. The Abraham Accords may soon include Saudi Arabia—and potentially even states long considered out of reach, like Syria and Lebanon. Deprived of Iranian sponsorship, Hezbollah may find itself facing a reckoning. Once a dominant destabilizing force, it will now have to recalibrate its role within Lebanon's fractured political system—perhaps even face pressure to disarm or integrate politically in ways it has long resisted. Should the ultimate turning point occur—if the Iranian regime were to collapse and be replaced by a fundamentally different leadership—Iran itself could reenter the regional stage, not as a spoiler, but as a potential partner in a new, post-theocratic era. In such a scenario, Israel would find itself in a position never before imagined: fully integrated into the region, not only diplomatically but economically. Trade, infrastructure, and innovation partnerships could stretch from the mountains of Afghanistan to the beaches of Tel Aviv. One need only imagine the economic potential of such a corridor. And what of the Palestinians? The hardline factions, stripped of external backing, would be isolated. For the rest, a long-term interim arrangement offering full political autonomy and semi-sovereignty, and guaranteed civil rights could become the most realistic path forward. In such a regional climate, the possibility of Palestinian prosperity—alongside Israeli, Saudi, Emirati, and even Iranian growth—would no longer be a fantasy. This is not naïve utopianism. It is a recognition that sometimes, out of protracted conflict, new possibilities arise. The Middle East has been here before and squandered such moments. But this time, perhaps, the pieces are falling into place for something more durable. Dr. Shuki Friedman is the director-general of the Jewish People Policy Institute and a senior lecturer in law at the Peres Academic Center. He is former chairman of the Israeli government committee on the Iran sanctions, and headed the international and foreign law department of the Israeli Prime Minister's Office. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
