The International Court of Justice will be delivering its advisory opinion on what obligations countries have to address the impacts of climate change very early morning this Thursday (NZ time).
The case started with Pacific youth lobbying governments and civil society to advocate for legal action on climate change. This was later picked up by the small Pacific island country of Vanuatu, which led a coalition of 132 nations calling for a non-binding advisory opinion. The ICJ’s opinion is also expected to address whether large countries doing the most polluting should be liable for damage caused to small island nations.
The Advisory Opinion will be announced at 1am NZ time on Thursday, 24 July 2025 (3pm The Hague time on Wednesday, 23 July 2025).
The SMC asked experts to comment on what they will be looking out for on Thursday, and to provide background on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific region.
Comments are organised by the following themes for easier navigation:
- Legal perspectives
- Sea-level rise and ocean warming in the Pacific
- Climate finance
- Fisheries in the Pacific
Dr Dalila Gharbaoui, Political and Social Scientist, Adjunct Research Fellow, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a pivotal advisory opinion that will clarify countries’ legal responsibilities in tackling climate change and protect vulnerable communities globally, a vital step toward climate justice and equity. This decision was prompted by Vanuatu that pushed the United Nations to request this opinion, emphasizing the urgent need for climate justice for vulnerable countries threatened by rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
“The ruling is expected to hold major polluters accountable and guide future climate litigation and policy. While not legally binding, it still has the potential to provide a basis for greater coherence, unify climate law and reshape national and international legislation. It also provides the historical opportunity to emphasize fairness for frontline communities—such as low-lying island nations—by empowering local voices and strengthening global climate action.
“Despite ongoing questions about enforceability, this marks a significant development in climate law, with the potential to reshape both international and national legislation and carry far-reaching implications for governments, corporations, and communities worldwide. The outcomes could reshape how countries approach climate commitments, offering a crucial opportunity to drive meaningful progress in the race against time to address climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Sandra Morrison (Ngāti Rārua; Ngāti Maniapoto; Ngāti Whakaue), Faculty of Māori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato, comments:
“States’ actions to respond to the climate crisis over the past few decades have not curtailed the rise in greenhouse gases, resulting in ongoing severe impacts on people, communities and livelihoods. As is known and accepted, it is particularly the developing countries and, in our region, the nations of the Pacific who are most challenged.
“As we await the advice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations to climate change, I reference the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), agreed to in 2015, particularly SDG 13 on climate action. I would expect to see the ICJ clarify to States the importance of a global partnership and that to preserve our environment is dependent on reducing social disparities, upholding human and Indigenous rights, and the need for a real push to have climate and environmental impacts as an integral consideration of development initiatives and policy. For some time, developing countries have been pushing for State responsibility and liability on loss and damage mechanisms and we should expect to see the ICJ force a stronger position on States in this regard as well.
“We await the guidance of the ICJ with hope and pay tribute to Vanuatu who spearheaded this process to hold major polluting countries to account.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Karen Scott, Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury, comments:
“When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its advisory opinion this week, I will be particularly interested in what it says about the following:
- Whether the ICJ concludes that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/ Paris Agreement regime is the primary set of legal obligations to determine what states have to do in order to address climate change or whether it engages with a wider set of legal rules and obligations;
- Whether the ICJ finds a due diligence obligation to address climate change and how it defines due diligence in this context, particularly in light of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;
- How the ICJ engages with the science of climate change, in particular, in light of how the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) treated the science in the 2024 Advisory Opinion;
- Whether the ICJ applies the precautionary principle and, if so, how it does so;
- Whether the ICJ engages with the law of the sea and how it deals with the ITLOS advisory opinion – does it support those findings (which were quite far reaching);
- Whether the ICJ engages with human rights – it would not have had the benefit of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decision but does it take a similar approach?;
- If it finds states in breach of their obligations, how does it address what should follow – how does it apply state responsibility in this situation – do the normal rules apply?”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Moritz Wandres, Senior Specialist – Physical Oceanography, Pacific Community (SPC), comments:
“Even if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced immediately, sea level will continue to rise for the next centuries and even millennia due to ocean warming and melting of ice sheets and glaciers.
“Unfortunately, Pacific island countries are disproportionately affected by the impacts of sea level rise for two reasons: Firstly, the rate of sea level rise in the Southwest Pacific is significantly higher than the global average. Secondly, many islands are extremely low-lying, resulting in frequent flooding and limiting options for relocation of people.
“Model projections indicate that the combined effect of sea level rise and large wave action will result in 1-in-100-year floods occurring annually in many places in the Southwest Pacific over the coming century.
“Without large-scale adaptation interventions and clever engineering solutions, the re-occurring saltwater intrusion into islands’ freshwater resources along with the destruction of crops and infrastructure will render many Pacific Islands uninhabitable in the coming decades.”
No conflict of interest.
Note to journalists: Additional research led by Dr Wandres on extreme coastal flooding due to climate change in Tuvalu is available here.
Jerome Aucan, Head, Pacific Community Centre for Ocean Sciences (PCCOS), Pacific Community (SPC), comments:
“The Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean and absorbs a large amount of heat from global warming as well as CO2. Without healthy oceans, this vital function could be jeopardized. Pacific Island Countries (PICs) manage over 10 percent of the world’s ocean in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the largest ocean basin.
“The most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report shows ocean warming, ocean acidification, and deoxygenation will continue to increase in the 21st century at rates dependent on future emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases (GHG).
“Ocean warming and ocean acidification have already affected food production including shellfish aquaculture and fisheries in some regions (IPCC, 2022). The IPCC consistently reports impacts and risks to ocean ecosystems from climate change under various warming scenarios.
“Lack of specific response to ocean warming, acidification and deoxygenation also risks undermining the effectiveness of more mainstream mitigation and conservation and tools like blue carbon ecosystems and habitat restoration efforts, marine protected areas, nature-based solutions, and climate-resilient fisheries and aquaculture.”
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
Coral Pasisi, Director Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, Pacific Community (SPC), comments:
“For all the promises made, Parties to the UNFCCC and its financing mechanisms, have failed to deliver adequate climate finance to those on the frontline of climate change impact and who contribute least to its cause. Pacific island countries have accessed less that 0.22% of the 16-year-old global promise of $100 billion per year by 2020.
“Under no circumstances can this rate of access to climate finance allow Pacific Small Island Developing States to address the magnitude of impact and loss and damage they are already sustaining from climate change let alone what is predicted in the future under the current lack of ambition by the biggest polluters.”
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
Espen Ronneberg, Senior Adviser, Climate Change Multilateral Agreements, Pacific Community (SPC), comments:
“The special circumstances of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have been recognized by the UN since the Rio Declaration in 1992, yet there has been scant progress in addressing these issues. When it comes to climate change, SIDS are affected in a much more existential manner than other developing countries. This is because climate change impacts often occur with compounding effects. The very livability of some SIDS will as a result be in question even before inundation occurs. Pacific SIDS have responded with some of the most ambitious targets in their Paris Agreement pledges and have taken comprehensive steps to plan for adaptation. Yet the lack of access to finance is putting all those efforts at risk, with the prospect of even greater loss and damage.”
No conflicts of interest.
Graham Pilling, Deputy Director, FAME Division (Head of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme), Pacific Community (SPC), comments:
“Tuna stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean are currently sustainably exploited and important both in the Pacific – revenue from fishing access provides well over a third of national government revenue for some Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as well as being a source of employment and food protein – and globally, as over half the world’s tuna catch comes from this region.
“Working with partners, we modelled the potential impacts of climate change on these key tropical tuna stocks. The results under higher greenhouse gas emission scenarios indicate reduced tuna catches and hence revenue opportunities within the exclusive economic zones of Pacific SIDS, with the potential for fishing to move out onto the high seas. A key though is that emission scenarios consistent with those under the Paris Agreement led to significantly reduced impacts on tuna abundance and hence Pacific SIDS.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am on the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the US Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC), and the Oceanic Fisheries Programme is the scientific services provider to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).”