Författare: Wesley Morgan Research Associate Institute for Climate Risk

Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.

This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.

Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.

While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.

In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.

Pacific nations such as Vanuatu see climate change as an existential threat.
YULIYAPHOTO/Shutterstock

What’s at stake in this case?

This week marks a milestone in a five-year legal campaign, travelling from a university tutorial in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, through the halls of the United Nations in New York and now to the world’s court in the Hague. The International Court of Justice is the only international court able to settle disputes between United Nations member states.

In 2019, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific were given a challenge: find the most ambitious legal pathways towards climate justice. They decided filing a case with the world court fitted the bill.

In 2023, Vanuatu and other nations succeeded in passing a resolution at the UN General Assembly requiring the world court to give an advisory opinion on two questions – what obligations do states have under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states causing “significant harm” to the earth’s climate?

Ahead of the hearing, the world court has received a record number of written submissions. Justices will hear two weeks of oral submissions. They will then produce an advisory opinion, expected to set a new benchmark in international law, by clarifying the legal obligations countries have to tackle emissions.

While an advisory opinion is not binding, the court’s findings will feed into national court cases and UN climate talks.

For Australia, this case presents a direct challenge. It has no plans to phase down fossil fuel exports. In fact, it plans to expand them.

If the court’s opinion draws clear lines between fossil fuel exporters and climate damage, it could have severe implications for Australia. It could, for instance, pave the way to compensation lawsuits for climate damage.

Since 2000, Australia has approved more than 700 oil, gas and coal projects. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. Just this week the federal government cleared the way for three new coal mines.

Australia is now one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. This is relatively new. While coal has been exported since 1801, large-scale exports of liquefied natural gas only began a decade ago.

When burned overseas, emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports are now more than double those of its entire domestic economy. These emissions damage our global climate, increasing risk of harm to people in Australia and worldwide.

What did Australia argue at the Hague?

In bringing the case, Vanuatu has argued actions causing climate change are unlawful under a range of international obligations including the law of the sea, human rights law and environmental law.

Australian delegates commended Vanuatu’s leadership in bringing this case and reiterated Australia’s commitment to working with the Pacific on climate.

But after the diplomatic niceties, Australian Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue got down to business. He told the court only the Paris Agreement – which requires countries to set targets to cut domestic emissions – should apply when it comes to mitigating climate change.

Donaghue also argued greenhouse gas emissions are different to, say, one country’s toxic waste damaging the environment of another. This, he argued, was because emissions have many sources.

Donaghue and the Australian delegation argued the court should take a narrow view of obligations to cut emissions and suggested responsibility for harms caused by climate change could not be pinned on individual states.

Australia has also argued protecting human rights does not extend to obligations to tackle climate change.

In 2022, Torres Strait islanders told a UN Human Rights Committee that a failure to address climate change violated their human rights. In response, the Australian government used very similar arguments, claiming climate change was best addressed through UN climate negotiations.

On Monday, special climate envoy Ralph Regenvanu began testifying for Vanuatu.
International Court of Justice, CC BY-NC-ND

What does this mean?

The court’s opinion will be handed down next year.

Despite Australia’s arguments, recent rulings by other courts and tribunals suggest the court may not decide in our favour.

For example in May, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea found greenhouse gas emissions were a form of marine pollution (because they acidify and heat the ocean), which countries have obligations to prevent. The tribunal rejected arguments that state obligations were limited to implementing the Paris Agreement.

A ruling on a similar case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected before the end of the year.

Relationships with Pacific states are likely to come under strain as the proceedings in the Hague roll on.

Matters could come to a head next year, when the court will release its advisory opinion.

A decision is still pending on whether Australia will host COP31, the 2026 UN climate talks, alongside Pacific island countries.

If our COP bid succeeds, it could give Canberra a chance to signal a shift away from fossil fuel exports in favour of green exports such as critical minerals and green iron. Doing so would align Australia’s interests with the Pacific – and present it much more clearly as a partner of choice. Läs mer…

Australia and Pacific island nations had hoped to leave this year’s global climate talks in Azerbaijan having won a bid to host the 2026 summit.

Instead, that decision on who will host the 31st “conference of the parties” (COP31) has been deferred until June next year – after Australia’s next federal election. Turkey, the only other country in the running to host COP31, has resisted lobbying efforts to persuade them to drop out.

The seven-month delay risks a less ambitious summit in 2026, because it takes time to build consensus for global initiatives. A decent run-up is needed to develop an ambitious action agenda.

Tens of thousands of participants could be expected for a fortnight of negotiations, with satellite events held across the nation and the Pacific.

The joint Australia–Pacific COP bid has had more support than Turkey. So rather than wait another seven months, here’s why it’s in all our interests to push ahead with planning for 2026.

Auditioning for COP31 president

Australia’s climate minister Chris Bowen played a crucial role at this year’s negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan. Dubbed the “Finance COP”, the COP29 talks focused on providing much-needed funds to help poorer nations address the climate crisis.

Bowen put his hand up to work with his Egyptian counterpart Yasmine Fouad to find a landing zone for a new global consensus on climate finance.

This was difficult, important work. Climate finance is the grand bargain at the heart of international climate cooperation, and is key to building trust. Reactions to the COP29 outcomes on finance suggest wealthy nations will need to commit more funds to help vulnerable countries pay the steep bills arising from climate change.

By playing a central role in the discussions, Bowen was effectively auditioning for the part of president of the UN climate talks in 2026 (if he is still in government when Australia hosts COP31). But his efforts are yet to be rewarded.

How to host UN climate talks

Hosting rights are shared between five UN country groupings on a rotational basis. The final decision is made by consensus.

This year, a group of 29 largely western European countries is responsible for the COP31 decision.

Australia’s bid was supported by other nations in the group including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand.

But Turkey also put in a serious bid. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attended COP29 to garner support for Turkey to host the talks.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met with Erdoğan at last week’s G20 summit in Rio De Janeiro, while Bowen made a last-minute dash to the Turkish capital Ankara to encourage Turkey to withdraw, with no success.

The partnership with Pacific island countries may ultimately get Australia’s bid over the line. Pacific nations have been leaders in the fight to tackle the climate crisis for decades and their moral authority is needed now more than ever.

A crucial opportunity

Far more than a two-week talkfest, the summit could help pave the way for Australia’s economic success in a world rapidly shifting from fossil fuels to clean energy. It would also help secure our place in the Pacific during a time of growing strategic rivalry.

Hosting the UN climate talks is also a chance to bolster climate action at a time when global cooperation is under strain. US President-elect Donald Trump is likely to tear up US climate targets and withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

As a middle power, Australia will never be able to dominate the international scene, and has an overriding national interest in a rules-based global order. This applies equally to rules and agreements on trade, security and climate. Hosting COP31 is a chance to pursue responsible middle-power diplomacy to shore up global commitment to climate action.

Several Australian cities have put up their hand to hold the COP31 summit, including Brisbane, Sydney and Perth. But Adelaide has a particularly strong case.

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskus joined Bowen in Baku to spruik the state’s credentials, including its aim to be 100% powered by renewables by 2027.

South Australia would use COP31 to try to attract investment and grow clean energy exports, with a focus on using wind and solar power to produce green hydrogen, green iron and green steel at the Whyalla steelworks.

Traditional steelmaking is very polluting and responsible for roughly 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Australia is the world’s largest exporter of raw iron ore, but is well positioned to export more-valuable, and lower-polluting, green iron to major economies in our region. The potential export value of green iron is estimated to be $295 billion per year, or three times the current value of iron ore exports.

South Australia has made a bold bid to host COP31 (SA Government)

Spotlighting hosts’ fossil fuel emissions

There have been growing concern the UN climate talks aren’t delivering ambitious action to shift away from fossil fuels. Climate activist Greta Thunberg describes the talks as “blah blah blah” – fiddling while the world burns.

Further eroding confidence, the talks have been hosted by a succession of petro-states that are major oil and gas exporters (Egypt in 2022, United Arab Emirates in 2023 and Azerbaijan in 2024).

Leading climate experts – including former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres – issued an open letter at COP29 calling for urgent reform of the COP process. They suggest only nations committed to transitioning away from fossil energy should be eligible to host the talks.

Today, Australia remains one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. Emissions from exported fossil fuels are more than double those from Australia’s entire domestic economy. Before COP31, Australia would be expected to develop and share a plan to phase out fossil fuel production.

Those expectations would come from close to home. Vanuatu’s climate envoy Ralph Regenvanu last week said Australia was “not acting in good faith” by promoting climate credentials while continuing to approve new coal and gas projects.

Vanuatu and nine other Pacific countries are among a group of nations calling for a global treaty to manage the phase out of fossil fuel production.

Australia will be expected to set an ambitious target to cut emissions in the next decade. All countries are due to set 2035 emissions targets next year. The UK has already set a target to cut emissions by 81% by 2035.

However, both Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton have suggested they won’t announce new climate targets before the next federal election, due by May 2025.

Two years from now, there’s every chance Australia and the Pacific will be hosting the world. This could be a golden opportunity to work together to address a shared threat. Whether or not we end up hosting, we need to get cracking now. Läs mer…