*The recent unanimous ruling by the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has very significant implications for the governments and decision-makers in Australia and other countries that are emitting significant amounts of Greenhouse gases through the mining and burning of fossil fuels at home - AND are exporting fossil fuels to other countries to burn! 

* It is not only significant that it is the first time a legal opinion has been provided regarding the responsibilities of emitting countries to those smaller countries/states being most affected by the impacts of climate changes! It is also significant because the decision was unanimous AND came after 91 countries (including Australia and the other big emitters) had made their submissions.

*The unanimous legal advice is the result of six years of a David and Goliath struggle by a group of former students of the University of the South Pacific supported by other stakeholders in the Pacific region (e.g., Solomon Islands, Vanuatu).

*The ruling sought to clarify the obligations of countries under international law to protect smaller countries AND INDIVIDUALS (i.e., a country's children! [Recall the decision by former Australian Liberal Party Environment Minister that she 'owed no responsibility to the health of Australian children for the impacts of climate change'  ) from the harms of climate change.

*The ICJ unanimously found reparations could be owed if a country fails to protect the climate from Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

[In the context of this finding consider the implications for Australia from the 2023 statement by Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's Minister for Adaptation for Climate Change: '... the Pacific's ability to to adapt to climate change 'is made impossible by Australia' hypocritical gas expansion plans' (i.e., the recent decision by Australia's Environment Minister to grant Woodside licence to keep producing gas on the Burrup peninsula for the next 45 years and contribute emissions of 6.1 billion tonnes of GHGs - 13 times Australia's total GHGs emissions!- for gas to be exported to other countries to burn).   Regenvanu sees the ICJ opinion as a basis for future possible litigation by Pacific countries against the Australian government and other countries recognised now as  'committing wrongful acts'.

*The unanimous ruling for the first time explicitly identifies 'the production and consumption of fossil fuels, the granting of exploration licences (e.g.,recent decision on Woodside & NW Shelf gas) and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (e.g., $14 billion to Woodside)  as failures to take appropriate action on climate AND COUNTRIES ARE ALSO LIABLE FOR ACTIONS BY THEIR CORPORATE SECTOR.

**Failures by countries are 'an international wrongful act under Human Rights Law and the UN Convention on the Land and Sea and others relating to atmosphere and Environment.'

** COMMENT: Dr Wesley Morgan, research associate at the Institute of Climate Risk and Response, University of New South Wales:

The ruling 'means governments must do more than set an emissions target.' The ruling 'certainly has huge implications for Australia as one of the world's largest exporters of coal and gas.' [e.g., Morgan- recent Federal Court dismissal of the class action brought against the Australian government by Torres Strait islanders for 'the failure (of the government) to reduce GHGs amounted to a breach of its duty of care' . For example, the ICJ ruling, in an appeal against that  judgement could add considerable legal weight. 

*COMMENT: Jaqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne:

'There's a huge gap between what the science says is needed and what countries are promising to do through their policy actions.' 'The ICJ advice '.... gives countries really clear signals that they need to be speeding up their processes.'

(Ref for post: Anderson.C., 'From Port Vila to The Hague', The Saturday Paper, July 26-August 1,2025, p.10)

 

POTENTIAL POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR AUSTRALIA USING THE ICJ JUDGEMENT:

  • Re-introduction of supertax on all fossil fuel producing/users companies & re-introduction of a Carbon Tax on all goods and services!  [Attention Productivity Commission!]
  • Indigenous-based class actions against fossil coal/gas companies preventing fossil fuel exploration, mining and production;
  • youth-based action to appeal the current policy that federal Environment Ministers have no legal obligation for duty of care of the health and welfare of children/young people for harm caused by actions of government approving/supporting actions of the fossil fuel corporate sector;
  • legal cases brought by countries to whom Australia is exporting fossil fuels to burn and cause GHG emissions;
  • legal cases brought by near neighbouring countries (Torres Strait Islands; Solomon Islands;Vanuatu; Kiribati; etc)  
  • countries no longer willing to accept any fossil fuel products raw or refined, or goods that have been produced by fossil-fuel energy - implications for Australia's trade-based economy!

*Hopefully, the ICJ judgement will spur the Australian government to much more rapid and significant decisions to accelerate the transition to renewably generated energies across all sectors, public, private and corporate, of the economy and away from any use of fossil fuels: leave them in the ground as all the science says we must do.

**** Increasing Government supports/subsidies/rebates for rooftop solar generating systems, battery storage, energy efficient appliances, active and EV forms of transport and infrastructure!

  • Let's get every roof in Australia with rooftop solar and every home with a storage battery, with energy efficient 'green' appliances and an EV in every garage!
  • 'Let's Electrify (renewably) Everything for Everyone' [Rewiring Australia] 

  • Let's make everyone a PRODUCER as well as a consumer of renewable energy! 

    (by David Smith for 'Electrifying Bradfield Inc.', August, 2025). 

Tags
Policy