African countries facing debt often struggle to balance their financial obligations with the urgent needs of their citizens—like healthcare, education, and clean water. Typically, discussions with creditors focus on finances while ignoring the pressing social and environmental impacts. However, some law students in Vanuatu are working to change that.
Vanuatu, a small island nation in the South Pacific, is highly vulnerable to climate change, with rising sea levels threatening its very existence. In 2019, law professor Justin Rose encouraged his students to find a legal path to address these challenges. Their innovative suggestion? Ask the United Nations to have the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarify countries’ legal responsibilities regarding climate change. They inspired their government to support this move, calling it a way to bring the world’s biggest issue to the highest court.
Fast forward to 2023, Vanuatu officially sought the ICJ’s advice on two critical issues:
- What obligations do countries have under international law to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions?
- What are the legal consequences if they fail to protect the environment for current and future generations?
This case generated significant interest, leading to over 150 written submissions and oral presentations from more than 100 states and organizations during nine days of hearings. On July 23, 2025, the ICJ responded, marking just the fifth instance in its nearly 80-year history that it had issued such an opinion.
The court determined that countries have obligations beyond the treaties they may have signed. These include customary international law, which involves legal practices that states follow out of a sense of obligation. This law applies to all countries and international organizations, whether or not they’ve signed a specific treaty.
The court outlined two main obligations:
- Preventing harm to the environment: States must assess the risk of causing environmental damage and take precautions. This means considering existing international standards and ensuring compliance from companies under their jurisdiction.
- Cooperating to solve international problems: A healthy environment is vital for human rights—including health and livelihood. Countries must work together to address challenges affecting their citizens.
While the court’s opinion is advisory, it could heavily influence how countries approach their legal responsibilities regarding climate change. This is particularly significant for African nations dealing with debt, as their financial choices impact both the environment and citizens’ rights to life and health.
This legal framework offers new avenues for African nations and their creditors. Here are three ways they might leverage this court opinion:
- Incorporate environmental impacts into negotiations: Debtors can argue that they cannot fully meet their financial obligations without considering the environmental and human rights impacts of their debts.
- Highlight international legal responsibilities: Both debtors and creditors should be aware of their legal duties regarding environmental protection.
- Inspire global activism: Advocates worldwide can draw from the Vanuatu case, pushing for accountability for failing to protect the environment.
The ICJ’s opinion could drive significant change in how debt is managed globally. Both states and financial institutions have a chance to align their practices with these legal guidelines and, in doing so, protect the planet and their citizens.
For more on this topic and its global implications, check the International Court of Justice for official updates and documents.
Source link
Climate Change,Africa,Climate finance,climate action,Debt,ICJ AO,Vanuatu ruling
