Fiji has taken its climate fight to the world stage, appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to argue for holding major greenhouse gas emitters accountable for the damage caused by climate change.
Representing Fiji, Attorney-General Graham Leung presented submissions to a panel of 15 judges, calling for a landmark declaration that countries like the United States and Australia are legally obligated to prevent environmental harm.
This unprecedented case, supported by submissions from 80 nations, has the potential to reshape global climate accountability.
Fiji’s Case: Legal Obligations for Climate Harm
In response to one of the central questions posed by the ICJ — what are the legal obligations of states for climate damage? — Mr Leung emphasised the devastating impact of greenhouse gases on vulnerable small island states.
“Fiji argued that countries emitting high levels of greenhouse gases have a legal duty to prevent and halt this damage because the evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is irrefutable —greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and rising sea levels,” Mr Leung stated.
For low-lying atoll nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
“If global temperatures rise beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, it could submerge entire countries, posing an existential threat,” Mr Leung explained. This danger extends beyond sovereignty to survival itself, as displaced populations risk becoming climate refugees.
Call for reparations
Fiji’s second submission argued for accountability and reparations from major emitters like the US and Australia.
“Countries responsible for irreversible climate damage must repair it,” Mr Leung stressed.
“This means putting affected nations back in the position they would have been in before the harm occurred, through measures like mitigation and adaptation.”
Fiji urged the ICJ to look beyond the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Instead, it called for a broader perspective, drawing on human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Charter.
These instruments, Mr Leung argued, underscore fundamental rights such as the right to survival and a healthy environment.
US and Australia’s stance
While Fiji’s submissions advocated for bold action, the US and Australia defended their positions as sovereign nations.
“The US is a big emitter, and they have the right to defend their position,” Mr Leung acknowledged. “However, Fiji respectfully disagrees.”
Australia’s position mirrored that of the US, focusing on its development priorities and coal mining activities.
“They argue that this does not impose additional legal responsibility for loss and damage. Fiji disagrees with respect,” Mr Leung said.
Looking ahead the ICJ’s decision, expected in 2025, could set a precedent for how states are held accountable under international law for climate change.
“This will be a watershed moment, offering clarity on states’ legal obligations to prevent and repair climate damage,” said Mr Leung.
“It will influence future climate negotiations, including next year’s COP in Brazil.”
As Fiji and other vulnerable nations await the ICJ’s ruling, the case underscores the urgent need for global cooperation to address the existential threat posed by climate change.
