“The Law Has Spoken: Now the World Must Act on Climate Justice,” Ambassador Ilana Victorya Seid, AOSIS Chair

In this exclusive opinion editorial for The New Atoll, Ambassador Ilana Victorya Seid, Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, reflects on the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion and its profound implications for small island developing states and the global pursuit of climate justice.

The climate crisis is not tomorrow’s problem. It is our lived reality, here, now, and every day.

For Small Island Developing States, it has long been a battle not only for survival but for sovereignty, dignity, and justice. On 23 July, that battle was validated by the world’s highest court.

In a unanimous and unequivocal advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice affirmed what SIDS have said for decades: climate change is not only a scientific or political concern, it is a matter of law. States have binding legal obligations to prevent further harm to the climate system and to protect the fundamental rights of present and future generations. Failure to do so is not just an ethical lapse. It is a violation of international law.

This opinion is not the product of political maneuvering or fleeting trends. It is the result of conviction, persistence, and vision. It began with 27 law students in Vanuatu who believed the International Court of Justice should speak to the legal responsibilities of States in the face of a planetary crisis. From there, Pacific youth built a global coalition. Civil society mobilized. Over 130 countries stood together in the General Assembly to request this ruling. What we received is not symbolism. It is a foundational moment for international law and climate justice.

Among the Court’s most powerful conclusions is its recognition that the 1.5°C temperature threshold is not a political aspiration. It is a legal imperative. Grounded in the Paris Agreement and affirmed by its governing bodies, the Court left no doubt. States are legally required to take action consistent with the science. For small islands, this is not academic. It is about preserving life, land, and lineage.

The Court also clarified that Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are not a matter of convenience or domestic politics. They must reflect a country’s highest possible ambition, grounded in science. When viewed collectively, they must deliver on the 1.5°C limit. In plain terms: weak pledges are not compliance. Everyone must do their fair share.

Critically, the Court reaffirmed a duty of due diligence, requiring States to avoid causing significant harm to the climate system. This includes abandoning policies that worsen the crisis, such as fossil fuel subsidies and expanded oil, gas, or coal development. One cannot claim climate leadership while accelerating planetary breakdown. And if a State does violate these duties, the Court was clear: they may be held responsible through cessation, restoration, and compensation for harm caused. The pathway to accountability is now legal terrain.

For SIDS, two principles affirmed by the Court are especially meaningful. First, sea-level rise does not erase maritime zones established under UNCLOS. Our ocean boundaries and the resources within remain intact. Second, climate-induced land loss does not strip a nation of its statehood. Our sovereignty, our legal identity, and our rights as States are not conditional on geography. This legal clarity offers hope and stability in the face of an increasingly unstable climate.

The Court also reinforced the legal foundation for international cooperation. Addressing climate change is not an act of benevolence. It is a legal duty. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities demands that States with greater capacity and historical emissions support those on the front lines. That means financing adaptation, transferring technology, and fulfilling commitments for loss and damage support, not as charity but as obligation.

And the Court made explicit what many have long understood: countries harmed by climate inaction have a legal right to reparation. The Loss and Damage Fund must not be a promise deferred. It must be a vehicle for delivering justice. And justice, as the Court affirmed, is not optional. It is owed.

The road ahead is clear. This legal opinion must now guide climate governance, from COP30 to the design of the next round of NDCs, from decisions on fossil fuel phase-out to the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund. Delay and ambiguity are no longer defensible, legally or morally.

For Palau, the meaning is personal. Survival with dignity means continuing to fish in waters that are ours by right. It means celebrating culture on land that remains above water. It means knowing that our children will inherit more than memory. They will inherit a nation. That is not a hope. It is a right. And now, it is a right recognized by the highest court in the world.

This is not the end of a campaign. It is the start of a new chapter. AOSIS will carry this opinion into every negotiation room, every legal forum, and every space where climate justice is shaped. The Court has delivered its judgment. Now, States must deliver on theirs.

As we say in Palau: Ng di sengsongd e mrecherchii a klengoes – even a small twig can bring a pot to boil. Small islands have led. The law has spoken. The world must now act.