For the people of Vanuatu, climate change is not a distant threat—it’s here now. Rising seas swallow shorelines, storms batter homes, and entire villages face relocation. Desperate to hold the world’s biggest polluters accountable, this small Pacific island nation has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to define countries’ legal obligations around climate justice. They point out that carbon emissions from major polluting nations have led to a crisis for their people and argue this injustice constitutes a violation of international human rights law. The ICJ will advise on whether or not existing human rights treaties cover climate and, if so, what comes next.
The United States, in its oral argument before the court earlier this month, defended the efficacy of the Paris Agreement, the existing global framework where countries set their own climate targets and cooperate to meet them, and argued that the court should not put climate under the purview of other treaties not designed to address climate. Activists quickly derided this position as “disheartening” and “morally bankrupt.” But practically speaking, the United States is right. The Paris Agreement—though far from perfect—is working: global warming projections have dropped significantly in the last decade, and large nations are cutting emissions. If the ICJ now takes human rights treaties not written with climate in mind and uses them to accuse historical emitters of human rights violations, they would risk alienating countries and muddying the global cooperation needed to continue tackling climate change.
While Vanuatu’s pursuit of climate justice is compelling, the ICJ can only offer symbolism and fresh rhetoric for “America bad” rallying cries that undermine productive climate efforts. To achieve real progress on climate change and true justice for low-lying nations like Vanuatu, diplomacy, and cooperation remain the best path forward.
Signed by 195 countries in 2015, the Paris Agreement is an international treaty intended to keep global warming to under 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and ideally under 1.5°C. Prior to its signing, the world was on pace to warm by nearly 4°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, a truly devastating scenario. Today, scientists project about 2.7°C of warming—an improvement of over a degree. While far from sufficient, this new trajectory would likely avert several climate tipping points, including the abrupt greening of the Sahara, the collapse of East Antarctica’s ice shelves, and the Amazon rainforest reaching a dieback tipping point that would have released massive amounts of stored carbon and devastated biodiversity. While several tripping point threats remain on a 2.7°C pathway, the Paris Agreement has unquestionably steered the world away from some of the most dire outcomes.
Though the Paris Agreement is often criticized for lacking an enforcement mechanism, many top polluters are still taking major strides within its framework. China’s carbon emissions are set to fall for the first time in 2024, marking the beginning of a downward trajectory. The European Union has slashed emissions by 37 percent since 1990, including a staggering 8 percent reduction from 2022 to 2023. The United States has slashed emissions by 20 percent since 2005, and with help from the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act, projects to reach 40 percent by the end of the decade. Much of this progress is simply economics—clean energy is now often cheaper than fossil fuels—but the Paris Agreement likely spurred some of the investor confidence needed to push the sector to its current heights.
This progress needs to be accelerated to prevent a still-catastrophic 2.7°C warming scenario, but that’s not something the ICJ can achieve. Its ruling in Vanuatu’s case will be merely an advisory opinion clarifying existing international law. The opinion will be non-binding and unenforceable, and increasingly, countries like China and the United States ignore the ICJ’s authority. They may assert that certain human rights laws apply to climate change and demand additional action from major emitters, or they may assert that there is nothing outside the Paris Agreement. Either way, the ICJ will upset someone, which risks driving division when the cooperative approach has proven to work.
Some might point out that the Paris Agreement, even if it slows emissions, can’t deliver justice for Vanuatu and other low-lying nations who did the least to cause climate change but face the most severe consequences—and they would be correct. But in its current state, the ICJ can’t either. The ICJ president, Nawaf Salam, has a troubling record that undermines his court’s credibility on human rights matters. Prior to his current position, Salam (then Lebanon’s ambassador to the UN defended Assad’s government in Syria on multiple occasions despite its use of chemical weapons and systemic violence against civilians.
He also consistently shielded Iran’s regime from scrutiny while supporting policies that advanced its regional influence, even in the face of documented human rights violations. Furthermore, his 210 votes to condemn Israel—mostly tied to one-sided resolutions that ignored violations by other parties—compound concerns about his impartiality, especially as he now refuses to recuse himself from cases involving Israel as ICJ president. Considering this past, no one should value Salam’s opinion on any justice or human rights question, even on the off-chance that the broken clock is right twice a day.
Facing an existential threat from climate change, it’s admirable that Vanuatu is exploring every option. Their quest for justice is rooted in scientific reality, and their years of inspiring climate diplomacy have no doubt helped spur some of the aforementioned progress. However, when activists use this case to vilify the Paris Agreement, sow division between countries, and promote hopelessness by downplaying existing climate progress, that only hurts Vanuatu’s cause.
As an American, I can’t say what justice for Vanuatu and other vulnerable nations looks like. Yet, bilateral diplomacy seems a more credible and attainable path. The United States opened an embassy in Vanuatu this year and seems interested in improving relations with Pacific nations to counterbalance China’s influence in the region. This development makes Vanuatu’s future not just a moral imperative but a matter of national interest. The U.S. could consider providing direct foreign aid outside of the UN framework, sharing climate adaptation technologies, and sponsoring visits between the countries to promote mutual understanding. This would be a lasting investment in American leadership and global stability.
To put these investments into a justice framework, the United States could also offer a formal apology for its outsized contribution to global climate change. There is precedent: Reagan apologized in 1988 for the U.S. government’s internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Clinton apologized in 1993 for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and Biden apologized two months ago for the federal government’s role in running Native American boarding schools, which caused generational harm to Indigenous communities. An apology doesn’t change the realities on the ground and would face its share of cynics. Still, I have to imagine the apology—coupled with collaborative climate initiatives that actually help people—would carry more weight than an authoritarian-sympathizing ICJ president’s non-binding opinion and hopefully inspire other countries to take similar action.
Vanuatu’s fight for justice should not have to be so onerous, and climate progress should happen fast enough to keep the world safe. But the answer isn’t for activists to attack what’s working. The Paris Agreement, while imperfect, has brought the world closer to averting disaster than any other global effort. What’s needed now is to build on that foundation, accelerate emission reductions, and find common goals with affected nations like Vanuatu that can lead to support and mutual understanding. Climate advocates must focus on building bridges, not burning them, to uplift Vanuatu’s determination and turn progress into justice.
Ethan Brown is an award-winning climate journalist and a Writer and Commentator for Young Voices. He has a B.A. in Environmental Analysis & Policy from Boston University. Follow him on X @ethanbrown5151.
Image: Menno Van Der Haven / Shutterstock.com.
