Vanuatu’s legal advocacy triumphs at UN: historic consensus resolution passed for advisory opinion from “world court”

“Today’s historic resolution is the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law” - Ishmael Kalsakau, Prime Minister of Vanuatu

On Wednesday this week (29th March), history was written on both sides of the Atlantic.  In Brussels, the European Parliament unanimously proposed including “ecocide” into EU law while in New York, a UN resolution called for a legal Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states with respect to climate change.  

The Resolution calling for an International Court of Justice* (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change was put forward by the Pacific island nation - or better termed, Great Ocean state - of Vanuatu, leading a remarkable coalition of no fewer than 133 co-sponsoring states.  It was successfully adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, by consensus - the first time an ICJ request has ever been passed without requiring a vote.

This is being hailed as an historic win for the nations of the global South, which have not contributed substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, yet bear the brunt of climate impacts. The adoption was also an acknowledgment by the Global north that climate ambition and multilateral climate cooperation can and should be strengthened. 

The legal clarity contained within an Advisory Opinion will help nation-states strengthen their climate policies on an international and domestic level.  It will offer clarity on state action under international treaties and general international law and will further the understanding of climate change as a human rights crisis as well as an environmental one.

With this remarkable victory the Republic of Vanuatu has firmly cemented its leading diplomatic role in championing legal avenues to respond to the climate and ecological crisis.  It is no coincidence that this Great Ocean state was also the first to call for states parties to the Rome Statute to consider the addition of ecocide to the list of crimes prosecutable at the International Criminal Court.

 Vanuatu will now be working in close partnership with Stop Ecocide International (SEI) to bring that powerful diplomatic advocacy to bear on the next logical step: establishing the preventive criminal law parameters - “ecocide law” - which will strongly support states in fulfilling their climate obligations, and adhere to multilateral environmental agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.  

As Vanuatu’s Head of UN Division Sylvain Kalsakau said, in a recent UN event co-hosted with SEI: “I was proud to co-host today's virtual side event with Stop Ecocide International, a partnership that will no doubt continue to strengthen in coming years. [...] Our planet and our future are in crisis. Existing environmental protection laws are weak and poorly imposed and concrete actions are urgently needed to protect the environment before it's too late. And ecocide becoming a crime will no doubt be an important tool in protecting our environment ... rest assured that Vanuatu will continue to construct a strong bridge needed between science and legal pathways to explore how best the states parties of the Rome Statute can continue discussions.”

Jojo Mehta, Co-founder & Executive Director of Stop Ecocide International, said: “The direction of travel is clear: from clarifying existing obligations, to deterring and preventing future harms. Vanuatu and the European Parliament this week are leading the way.  It is time for governments to take the ecocide law initiative to the global level and support making it a crime at the International Criminal Court.” 

*The International Court of Justice is sometimes referred to as the “World Court” because it has the power to resolve disputes between countries.

Previous
Previous

Finland: Ministers support world première of Ecocide Law choral suite

Next
Next

Vatican repudiates centuries-old “doctrine of discovery” used to justify seizing indigenous lands