Jubilation at the International Court of Justice's historic climate ruling
On the program this week:
Celebrations across the region after the world's highest court declares states have a legal obligation to combat climate change.
Concerns in Palau at a draft agreement with the United States to have the tiny nation accept asylum seekers while their refugee claims are assessed.
Music lovers are mourning the death of one of the Pacific's biggest music stars, George "Fiji" Veikoso, who shaped the sound of Polynesian reggae and Islands R&B over three decades.
Tourism operators and international visitors in Tonga are angry after the country's only domestic airline was grounded for several days during peak holiday season.
Guam has been transformed into a key staging ground for the largest U.S. Air Force exercise in history that experts say is aimed squarely at one country.
And it was expected to be a walkover but a hastily pulled together group of First Nations and Pacific rugby players say pride spurred them on to thrilling performance against the British and Irish Lions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry
A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Jubilation at the International Court of Justice's historic climate ruling
A roundup of major stories from across the region and the people involved and affected by them. On the program this week: Celebrations across the region after the world's highest court declares states have a legal obligation to combat climate change. Concerns in Palau at a draft agreement with the United States to have the tiny nation accept asylum seekers while their refugee claims are assessed. Music lovers are mourning the death of one of the Pacific's biggest music stars, George "Fiji" Veikoso, who shaped the sound of Polynesian reggae and Islands R&B over three decades. Tourism operators and international visitors in Tonga are angry after the country's only domestic airline was grounded for several days during peak holiday season. Guam has been transformed into a key staging ground for the largest U.S. Air Force exercise in history that experts say is aimed squarely at one country. And it was expected to be a walkover but a hastily pulled together group of First Nations and Pacific rugby players say pride spurred them on to thrilling performance against the British and Irish Lions.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
As Torres Strait battles rising seas, Canberra has been put on notice
To the beat of ancient drums, in the language of their ancestors, dancers from Australia's northernmost islands share a modern story. Outside the federal court in Cairns, Torres Strait Islander dancers wear grass skirts and the traditional headdresses of their warriors; their movements depict the rising of the seas and the strengthening of the currents. It's the story of climate change. Across the globe, outside the world's highest court in the Netherlands, our Pacific Island neighbours shared a similar dance about their culture and traditions. Together, they send a message to the world of what stands to be lost if leaders don't take serious action on climate change. Last week, the federal court found Australia does not owe a duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islander people and their culture from the impacts of climate change. In its wake, the International Court of Justice declared that states do have a "duty to cooperate" on addressing climate change or they risk breaching international law. It raises the question — will the Australian government heed the warning? Not many get to visit Australia's northernmost islands, but as one of the lucky ones, I witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts climate change is having on these small island communities, their livelihood, and culture. It is not a distant threat; it's happening now. Their loved ones' gravestones have been destroyed, beaches once used for camping eroded, and food is unable to be grown due to salty earth. Lead applicants for the case, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, explained how the seasons have changed and the migration of traditional food sources, turtles and dugongs, has shifted — generations of passed-down knowledge are being lost. As some of the lowest emitters contributing to the global carbon footprint, they are also amongst the most vulnerable to the impacts of the imposing climate frontline. Sea levels in the Strait are estimated to be rising at about twice the global average. Scientists predict that in 25 years, the islands will be uninhabitable. This is the reality we face as a nation — the severing of our connection to some of the world's oldest traditions and culture. Justice Michael Wigney accepted these facts in court last week but found the case failed not because it had no merit but because negligence law doesn't apply to 'core government policy', nor does it acknowledge the loss of culture. While sympathetic, he ultimately determined it was up to parliament to make decisions on climate policy, not the courts. "Until the law in Australia changes … the only real avenue for those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders involves public advocacy and protest or ultimately recourse via the ballot box," Justice Wigney said. This is little comfort for First Nations people who have been protesting environmental degradation and heritage destruction for decades, and are a minority at the ballot box. Three thousand kilometres away from the Torres Strait in Canberra, where the impacts of climate change are arguably not so visible, our leaders make the decisions on how Australia will participate in its global responsibility to address climate change. As Justice Wigney noted, "perhaps still are some climate change doubters and deniers among the politicians and bureaucrats." The landmark case put under the microscope the government's willingness to address the impacts of climate change and found that in the past, it hadn't been doing enough. The Commonwealth argued Australia was not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, at 1.3 per cent, and therefore has little impact on a global scale. But the Torres Strait Islanders argued Australia — a high-emitting country in per capita terms — was not contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce emissions, based on the best available science. If you include exports, Australia accounts for 4.5 per cent of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, with 80 per cent of those emissions from exports, according to the Climate Analytics Institute. Justice Wigney acknowledged the current Labor government has set "significantly higher and more ambitious goals" than the previous government. But Traditional Owners, environmental groups, and scientists were dismayed when it green-lit the controversial expansion of Woodside's Northwest Shelf gas project until 2070, despite their continued protests about the degradation of 50,000-year-old sacred rock art as well as its impact on emissions. Like the Torres Strait, our Pacific Island neighbours maintain ancient traditions and a deep connection to the land and sea. They are also on the climate change frontline. This week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that states have a legal obligation to address climate change, and if they don't, it may constitute "an internationally wrongful act". It was a campaign started in 2019 by students and youth organisations from Vanuatu, which is amongst the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. The 500-page opinion is not legally binding, but advocates and lawyers hope the world's highest court will hold some weight amongst the largest carbon emitters. Australia was one of 132 member states that requested the opinion in 2023, but in hearings, it argued that nations have no legal obligations on climate change beyond those in existing pacts like the Paris Agreement. This diverged from the views of the Pacific Islands and put into question Australia's role and responsibility as a key strategic partner in the Pacific. Could and should Australia be doing more to encourage other nations to do more to stop our neighbours from sinking beneath the tide? The historic ruling could pave the way for reparations for nations harmed by climate change and create a moral responsibility for Australia to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, as determined in the uncles' climate case, it will be up to the Commonwealth to decide whether it will listen to the international court, its Pacific neighbours, and its own people to do more. Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai fear their people will become Australia's first 'climate refugees', and it's a fear shared by Tuvaluans. Australia has already made a resettlement agreement with Tuvalu to take in their people as the seas rise. Tuvalu's former prime minister criticised the agreement as a way to "buy Tuvalu's silence over Australia's coal exports" in an opinion piece published by Radio New Zealand in 2023. In other words, planning for the worst rather than working to prevent it. Last year at Garma, I sat in the audience as Tuvalu's Minister for Climate Change Mania Talia spoke of the devastation his island nation faces from the rising seas. Something that stuck with me was his final comment expressing his admiration for the strength and resilience of First Nations people. "Despite all the difficulties, the problem that you're facing, you are able to dance and dancing in the face of despair is literally telling us that we have hope in the future," he said. "That's the message I'm going to take and tomorrow we'll also continue to dance our fidelity, our traditional dance, despite climate change." As the prime minister next week heads back to Garma, one of the country's largest Indigenous gatherings, will climate policy be on the agenda? The international court has made its decision, and vulnerable communities have made their plea, but will Australia act?
