by Martin Haffner Associate Editor
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has become a battleground in the global fight against climate change, as the Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, and Solomon Islands presented impassioned arguments urging the Court to recognise the legal obligations of States in addressing the climate crisis.
Representing some of the most climate-vulnerable nations, these Pacific Island countries called for a landmark advisory opinion that could reshape international climate law.
The Cook Islands laid bare the intersectional injustices of climate change, describing it as the “greatest colonial and racist threat” to their people’s traditional knowledge and way of life.
They argued that States driving the climate crisis have breached their human rights obligations by perpetuating racial and gender discrimination.
“Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge is inseparable from our environment,” they stated, emphasising that environmental degradation disrupts this delicate balance.
The Cook Islands stressed that international law prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination, and that the racially and gender-disparate impacts of climate change amount to a breach of these obligations.
They called for transformative remedies, including international law reforms to end fossil fuel subsidies and impose bans on expansion.
“The structures that enable rights violations must be dismantled,” they said, advocating for a legal system that ensures environmental and social justice.
The Marshall Islands, grappling with the dual legacy of nuclear testing and rising seas, painted a harrowing picture of their future.
“We face the threat of becoming a nation of water graves,” they warned, urging the ICJ to hold major emitters accountable.
They highlighted that with just 50 cm of sea-level rise, minor flooding will escalate into catastrophic events, displacing communities and destroying livelihoods. With adaptation costs for two urban centres alone projected at USD$9 billion, they stressed that financial assistance is a necessity, not a luxury.
The Marshall Islands called for urgent emissions cuts and full reparations under the principles of State responsibility.
“Due diligence means taking rapid, deep action,” they said, noting that States have long known the risks of climate change.
The Solomon Islands echoed the call for justice, emphasising the human cost of rising seas.
Five islands have already been lost, they lamented, with entire communities forced to abandon their ancestral lands.
They warned that relocation erodes cultural identity and risks sparking conflict in their customary land ownership system.
The Solomon Islands also urged the ICJ to recognise the growing norm of climate-induced displacement as a refugee issue.
They invoked the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, asserting that climate refugees must be afforded international protection.
“Returning displaced persons to lands doomed by sea-level rise violates their fundamental rights,” they argued, calling on the Court to uphold the principle of non-refoulement in climate-related cases.
All three nations urged the ICJ to adopt a comprehensive view of international law, incorporating principles like Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).
They argued that wealthier States must bear a larger share of the climate burden, as their historical emissions have disproportionately fuelled the crisis
