From the Classroom to the Courtroom: How Pacific Students changed International Law — and will Australia Follow?

Genevieve Phillips | South Pacific Fellow 

Image sourced from Katrin Bolovtsova via Pexels

In 2019, a group of students at the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Suva asked a bold question: could international law hold states accountable for climate change? Their campaign ultimately inspired Vanuatu to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Six years later, on 23 July 2025, the Court delivered its landmark advisory opinion – affirming that states have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system, and that failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act.

As a law student at USP today, that origin story can be felt through each class. It demonstrates that that the Pacific is not simply one of climate change’s most vulnerable regions; it is increasingly shaping the legal and diplomatic responses to it. As Australia positions itself as the Pacific’s partner and prepares for COP31, the question is whether Australia is prepared for this demonstration of leadership to shape its own climate diplomacy and strategic interests.

Pacific Leadership Beyond Symbolism

The advisory opinion is the most significant legal clarification on climate obligations not only because it clarified states’ legal obligations on climate change, but it also transformed decades of Pacific advocacy into international legal authority. Initiated by Vanuatu and backed by over 130 countries, the request asked the world’s highest court to address this issue. Additionally, the Court’s confirmation that states have binding obligations to protect the climate system and that breaches may give rise to legal responsibility, strengthens the position of climate vulnerable states in international negotiations and future litigation.

For Pacific Island nations, this opinion is particularly important as it acknowledges the unique legal and existential challenges they face. In affirming that statehood should endure even if a territory is threatened by sea-level rise, the Court recognised that climate change cannot be allowed to erase the sovereignty of nations. This is not merely a legal clarification but an affirmation of the Pacific’s long-standing insistence that action on climate change is fundamentally about protecting self-determination, people and communities. 

This advisory opinion is remarkable for a number of reasons but primarily where the momentum originated. Instead of emerging from one of the world’s major powers, it grew from a student-initiated campaign in the Pacific and supported by Pacific governments. In doing so, the Pacific demonstrated that leadership is not measured by military or economic power but instead by the ability to shape international norms. This shift should also reshape and inspire how Australia understands its relationship with the region. 

Australia’s Pacific Partnership Must Move Beyond Rhetoric

Australia has made genuine progress on climate policy. It strengthened its emissions reduction target, which together with increased climate finance commitments and ratification of the Pacific Resilience Facility Treaty, demonstrates a greater willingness to engage with regional priorities than in previous years. These are important steps, particularly as Canberra seeks to position itself as the Pacific’s partner of choice. Yet the ICJ advisory opinion raises a more difficult question: whether Australia is prepared to follow the Pacific’s leadership when it challenges Australia’s preferences.

Through negotiation over the Loss and Damage Fund this tension is evident. While Pacific nations acting through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), advocated for governance arrangements centred within the UN climate framework, Australia supported locating the fund under the World Bank. Although both approaches sought to operationalise climate finance, Australia’s position reflected a preference for institutions familiar to developed states rather than those championed by many Pacific governments. If Australia is to be serious about placing the Pacific at the centre of its foreign policy, partnership must extend beyond consultation to accept that Pacific states will sometimes lead, and Australia will need to follow.

This same test applies to COP31. Although Türkiye’s competing bid prevented Australia and the Pacific from jointly hosting the conference in Oceania, Australia’s presidency of the negotiations remains an opportunity to demonstrate that Pacific priorities will shape the global climate agenda. Success should not be measured solely by diplomatic outcomes or international recognition, but by whether Pacific voices influence the decisions that emerge from the summit. If the ICJ opinion affirmed the Pacific’s legal leadership, COP31 offers Australia the chance to show it is prepared to recognise that leadership in practice.

Following Pacific Leadership

While the story of the ICJ advisory opinion is often told as a landmark in climate law, it is also a story about who has the power to shape international norms. A campaign that began with students at USP evolved into a legal initiative led by Pacific governments that has changed how the world understands states’ obligations to address climate change. That achievement should challenge outdated assumptions that the Pacific is merely a recipient of international assistance rather than a source of global leadership.

For Australia, the lesson is clear. Success in the Pacific cannot be measured only by climate finance commitments, diplomatic visits or strategic partnerships. It will increasingly depend on whether Canberra is willing to treat Pacific governments as equal partners whose priorities shape regional policy rather than simply inform it. As Australia prepares for COP31 and has the chance to respond to the advisory opinion, its credibility will reside in whether it is prepared to follow where the voices of Pacific leadership have already led.

The Pacific has shown that even the world’s smallest states can reshape international law. Australia now has an opportunity to demonstrate that genuine partnership means more than listening – it means acting on that leadership.

Genevieve Phillips is completing a Bachelor of Law/ Arts (History) student at the University of Notre Dame Australia, and a 2025 New Colombo Plan Scholar currently based in Suva, Fiji, on semester exchange at the University of the South Pacific. With a focus on international environmental law, ocean governance, and Australia–Pacific relations, she brings both academic rigour and lived regional experience to her writing on contemporary foreign policy issues.

As Regional Correspondent for Australia and the Pacific with the Young Diplomats Society, Genevieve produces concise policy updates and article pitches on diplomacy, security, and climate developments across Oceania. She also serves as Publications Associate at the Asia-Australia Youth Association. 

Drawing on her cross-cultural experiences across Cambodia, France, Italy, and the

Pacific, including volunteer work managing social media and promotional content, Genevieve is passionate about elevating Pacific perspectives in international affairs and has gained a particular interest in climate mobility, maritime governance, and the intersection of regional diplomacy and environmental justice. 

She hopes to contribute thoughtful, policy-relevant analysis to YAIA’s South Pacific portfolio.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. AI tools were used by this author for structuring and idea refinement but all content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.