From a classroom to global courtroom victory

They were young, unknown, and up against the odds.

Yet after years of knock-backs, awkward first meetings, and moments when giving up felt easier than pushing on, Solomon Island’s Rodrick Holness says the sweet taste of victory in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was worth every hurdle.

Speaking at the inaugural SPREP Pacific Youth Dialogue on Loss and Damage in Apia, Samoa, Holness told a room of young climate advocates that the fight for an ICJ advisory opinion on climate change began humbly in 2019, inside a small University of the South Pacific classroom at Emalus Campus, Vanuatu.

“It was a voluntary exercise apart from the course… a couple of students… we started researching about what are the mediums and pathways that we can sort of like bring the climate justice in action more proactively,” Holness said.

What followed was a mix of gritty campaigning and community spirit – coastal clean-ups along Vanuatu’s shores, long nights of research, and hesitant trips to government offices.

“Everyone was shy, yeah? Because we were students at the time,” Holness recalled.

“We would sit under the Abalolo tree and discuss the way forward, we were not seeing changes in the UNFCCC COP processes, we were being watered down always,” he said.

“This birthed the idea of going to the world’s highest court.”

Their persistence paid off when then foreign minister Ralph Regenvanu agreed to hear them out.

“He was really humble enough to listen to us and take on board the idea… so then it eventually became something big for us globally now.”

But the road was far from smooth. The Pacific Islands Forum in 2019 brushed off their proposal.

“The Pacific leaders did not understand or even see that as one of the viable options… it was really a hard-broken time for us as well,” Holness said.

Support from family and mentors kept the dream alive.

“It won’t be a happy ending or a sweet victory if you don’t overcome the challenges,” Holness remembered being told – words that carried them through the darkest moments.

When leaders closed their doors, the students opened books, seeking the wisdom of climate law experts worldwide who agreed the ICJ path was worth taking.

This year, their once-unnoticed campaign made history.

The ICJ confirmed that states have legally binding obligations under international law to protect human rights and the environment from climate change – a global win born from Pacific persistence.

“It sort of reinforces vulnerable countries like Africa-Pacific, yeah?… It gives us leverage to actually have strong action,” Holness said.

“It’s legally binding states’ obligation towards protecting human rights, and of course, the environment.”

To the youth in the room, Holness offered one final reminder, quoting a mentor: “Remember your sacrifice.”

Then, with a smile, echoed a well-known Pacific truth: “We should not be defined by the smallness of our islands, but by the greatness of our oceans.”

Rodrick Holness (front, fourth from left) and members of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change movement..jpg

WHAT THE ICJ ADVISORY OPINION MEAN FOR THE PACIFIC

Pacific Islands now have a powerful legal tool to demand stronger global climate action following the historic advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ confirmed that all countries have binding international legal duties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect vulnerable nations, like those in the Pacific, from the worsening impacts of climate change.

For small island states already grappling with rising sea levels, intensified cyclones, and disappearing coastlines, the ruling marks a major step forward in the fight for climate justice.

“The obligations of States under these treaties are obligations erga omnes partes. As a result, all States parties have a legal interest in the protection of the main mitigation obligations… and may invoke the responsibility of other States for failing to fulfil them,” the Court stated.

The ruling makes it clear that:

• Countries have legal obligations under both international treaties and customary international law to reduce emissions.
• States must act with due diligence, cooperate with others, and take sustained, effective measures to safeguard the planet and its people.
• Countries that fail to meet these duties—and cause harm—can be held legally responsible and may be required to cease harmful activities or pay reparations to affected states.