Speaker 1: So my name is Cynthia who Nuhi. I am from
Speaker 1: Solomon Islands. I think I was around eight to ten
Speaker 1: when I could see the world more clearly and I
Speaker 1: started noticing sea level rise.
Speaker 2: Cynthia Hanuhi knew about the climate crisis before she had
Speaker 2: a word for it. As a kid, she would travel
Speaker 2: with her dad to the outlining Fanalay Island to visit
Speaker 2: her family. There she saw empty, stilled houses sitting above
Speaker 2: the water.
Speaker 1: I liked asking questions and my dad was a very
Speaker 1: patient man, and he told me about how the people
Speaker 1: have had to move inland because the sea level was
Speaker 1: coming in. And the more I asked, the more I
Speaker 1: wanted to find out. And the more I found out
Speaker 1: this changes are happening not because something that the people's
Speaker 1: in the islands that are way far from the outside world,
Speaker 1: so remote. It's not because of their owndoing. They contribute
Speaker 1: almost nothing to this. But they are the ones that
Speaker 1: you know, get.
Speaker 2: To loose their homes these days. Finally is quiet. Around
Speaker 2: eighty percent of houses are abandoned, freshwater wells have been
Speaker 2: inundated with salt water, and vegetables no longer grow in
Speaker 2: the soil. Watching the slow destruction of her family's ancestral
Speaker 2: home by man made climate change, Cynthia was motivated to act.
Speaker 2: Cynthia's six year fight took her all the way to
Speaker 2: the Hague and the International Court of Justice, where a
Speaker 2: landmark for ruling was handed down last week. Hi, I'm
Speaker 2: Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM today reporter
Speaker 2: Shane Anderson on the Pacific Island students behind the historic
Speaker 2: icj ruley and the implications for major polluters, including Australia.
Speaker 2: It's Monday, July twenty eighth. Shane. You've been speaking to
Speaker 2: Cynthia about her journey from the Pacific to the International
Speaker 2: Court of Justice. Can you tell me about it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, Cynthia, from those early experiences of seeing her relatives'
Speaker 3: houses literally falling into the sea, she described it as
Speaker 3: something that really motivated her to do something that could
Speaker 3: help her people in a practical way, and that led
Speaker 3: her to enroll in a law degree at the University
Speaker 3: of the South Pacific. So she ended up moving from
Speaker 3: the Solomon Islands to Port Vila, the capital of Vanawatu,
Speaker 3: where the campus was. From there she ended up in
Speaker 3: a course on environmental law.
Speaker 1: We went in bright eyed, you know, ready to be inspired.
Speaker 1: But the more we learn, the more frustrating it became
Speaker 1: that the mechanism the climate change regime that's in place
Speaker 1: is not reflective of the urgency of the matter for
Speaker 1: our people, especially all of us came from online communities,
Speaker 1: and so you have difference from Tonga, Fiji, some more Kiribas,
Speaker 1: all the others coming together to walk together towards a solution.
Speaker 3: So what was really concerning to them was they were
Speaker 3: seeing firsthand how the law was failing to recognize climate
Speaker 3: harms that are having impacts on smaller nations who have
Speaker 3: very little political power on the world stage to do
Speaker 3: anything about it. It's in the context of this that
Speaker 3: they started to learn about this thing called an advisory opinion.
Speaker 2: Can you explain what an advisory opinion is?
Speaker 3: Yes, So, an advisory opinion is delivered by the International
Speaker 3: Court of Justice in the Hague, which is connected to
Speaker 3: the UN, and one of its functions is dispensing these
Speaker 3: advisory opinions that aim to clarify some of the most
Speaker 3: complicated and controversial legal questions regarding international law. And the
Speaker 3: findings are non binding, which means they're not changing laws
Speaker 3: on their own, but these opinions carry a lot of
Speaker 3: legal weight, and it's for this reason that the ICJ
Speaker 3: doesn't just give opinions on anything, and they usually tend
Speaker 3: to deal with things like border disputes. So, for example,
Speaker 3: there's an opinion being deliberated on at the moment around
Speaker 3: the occupied Palestinian territories. But you know, when Cynthia and
Speaker 3: her classmates were learning about the ICJ and the advisory opinion,
Speaker 3: she told me that one of the reasons why it
Speaker 3: was so appealing to her was because it sounded so familiar.
Speaker 1: In the Pacific, we've always had this worldview where when
Speaker 1: there's uncertainty in terms of customs or culture, we go
Speaker 1: to our chiefs and what they say in clarity how
Speaker 1: many to our people. That's the same worldview we'd like
Speaker 1: to present here in terms of the icc because we're
Speaker 1: missing that secret authority that can clarify and set the basis.
Speaker 3: Now, the ICJ is actually never given an advisory opinion
Speaker 3: on climate change before, but in twenty twelve, the you know,
Speaker 3: tiny Pacific nation of Palout initially had this idea of
Speaker 3: going to the ICJ to seek an advisory opinion about
Speaker 3: what the responsibilities are from the biggest polluters towards the
Speaker 3: least polluters. That campaign failed, but the students thought, you know,
Speaker 3: in the time that had passed since his campaign had failed,
Speaker 3: the global awareness of climate change and the damage being
Speaker 3: brought on the Pacific has grown so much that maybe
Speaker 3: it was the right time for a renewed push with
Speaker 3: slightly tweaked wording. And their next question was, well, this
Speaker 3: is a good idea. How do we actually get this
Speaker 3: before the UN General Assembly?
Speaker 2: Okay, so tell me about it. How did they go
Speaker 2: about that?
Speaker 3: So, to start with, they formed an advocacy group called
Speaker 3: the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, of which Cynthia
Speaker 3: became the president, and they began this massive letter writing campaign.
Speaker 3: They wrote to the heads of state of a bunch
Speaker 3: of different countries. They even sent a letter to former
Speaker 3: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and probably not a surprise
Speaker 3: to know they didn't get the response that they wanted.
Speaker 4: Initially, we waited and we waited and waited and waited
Speaker 4: and waited, and to a point where we thought, okay,
Speaker 4: let us must have just gone to the out box.
Speaker 1: Those were really hard days because there was a lot
Speaker 1: of criticism and you know, people telling us off that
Speaker 1: this is impossible, it's not going to go. But then
Speaker 1: one country came back with very compelling positive response, and
Speaker 1: that is the Republic of Vanuatu.
Speaker 3: So the first person to take their initiative seriously was
Speaker 3: the then Foreign Minister of Vaniwatu, Ralph Frankenfarnu. He was
Speaker 3: a former law student from that campus himself, and he
Speaker 3: recalled being really impressed by their initiative. And from there
Speaker 3: the idea was taken on by the Republic of Vaniwatu's government.
Speaker 2: Right, so they've got the support of one country, but
Speaker 2: you need more than that to get an issue in
Speaker 2: front of the General Assembly.
Speaker 3: Right yes, So in order to get something referred to
Speaker 3: the International Court of Justice, you need a majority vote,
Speaker 3: So you need ninety three countries minimum to support a
Speaker 3: question to be referred to the ICJ. So the first
Speaker 3: step of the Vadawatu government was to take it to
Speaker 3: the Pacific Islands Forum. This happens every year. Australia and
Speaker 3: New Zealand are part of the negotiations there. Even that
Speaker 3: alone took nearly three or four years to be fully
Speaker 3: endorsed by the Pacific Islands Forum and then from there
Speaker 3: the momentum built globally. So the Pacific Island Students, including Cynthia,
Speaker 3: they engaged something like fifteen hundred different advocacy groups across
Speaker 3: one hundred and thirty countries. So this is a group
Speaker 3: of volunteer law students who then went on and spent
Speaker 3: all years traveling around the world trying to drum up
Speaker 3: support for the initiative in front of the UN and
Speaker 3: it absolutely worked. They got the vote they needed at
Speaker 3: the General Assembly and then it went before the ICJ.
Speaker 2: Once it was there, a record number of countries lined
Speaker 2: up to have their say. After the break, the judges
Speaker 2: make their ruling about what we owe our smaller neighbors
Speaker 2: feeling the impact of climate change. Okay, so what did
Speaker 2: the International Court of Justice find and what did they rule?
Speaker 3: So the question put to the ICJ was, you know,
Speaker 3: asking them to clarify what are the obligations between bigger
Speaker 3: polluting states towards smaller states in regards to protecting them
Speaker 3: from climate change.
Speaker 1: Climate change pauses are quintessentially universal risk to austics.
Speaker 3: And the Interctual Court of Justice spelled out for the
Speaker 3: first time that the failure of larger polluting states to
Speaker 3: protect smaller states from climate harms could be backed up
Speaker 3: by legal consequences.
Speaker 2: The Court found that countries fail to take measures to
Speaker 2: prevent climate change, they could be in violation of international
Speaker 2: law and the countries.
Speaker 3: It goes on to explain that failures could be including
Speaker 3: things such as still producing fossil fuels, still consuming fossil fuels,
Speaker 3: still granting exploration licenses, or offering subsidies for the fossil
Speaker 3: fuel industry.
Speaker 2: One of the things this does is clear the way
Speaker 2: for countries to actually sue each other over their emissions
Speaker 2: and contributions to climate change, even for historic emissions.
Speaker 3: What this does is it gives these smaller nations power
Speaker 3: that they didn't have before. It gives them leverage in negotiations,
Speaker 3: and it forces bigger nations to come to the table
Speaker 3: and agree to more ambitious climate policy because now there's
Speaker 3: the threat of consequences if they fail to do so.
Speaker 2: And given all that, how could this impact Australia.
Speaker 3: It could have massive impacts on Australia in a number
Speaker 3: of different ways.
Speaker 2: Definitely. One of the options is litigation against Australia. Possibly
Speaker 2: according to what Ralph.
Speaker 3: Frank Andvarannu, who's now the Minister for Climate Change Adaptation
Speaker 3: in the Republic of Anawatu. He actually went on the
Speaker 3: ABC the morning the ruling was delivered and spelled out
Speaker 3: really plainly that future litigation against Australia is now one
Speaker 3: of the options on the table.
Speaker 4: To the Advisory pin and handed out today.
Speaker 2: Australia is committing internationally wrong for acts because it is sponsoring,
Speaker 2: it is subsidizing fossil fuel production and excessive emissions.
Speaker 4: I mean Australia is one of these.
Speaker 3: So not only does that leave Australia open to future litigation,
Speaker 3: but it could influence cases that are already happening here
Speaker 3: at the moment too.
Speaker 2: So tell me a little bit more about that. Because
Speaker 2: this decision comes just after another high profile climate decision
Speaker 2: where traditional owners from the Torres Strait went to the
Speaker 2: Federal Court of Australia and argued that the government had
Speaker 2: a duty of care to protect their homelands from climate change.
Speaker 2: The judge found the government didn't have an obligation, but
Speaker 2: acknowledged the impact of climate change. So what impact could
Speaker 2: this ruling have on that case and others like it?
Speaker 3: I mean, if we look back on that case, the
Speaker 3: judge found that the government didn't have an obligation, not
Speaker 3: because there wasn't a moral reason to protect the Torres
Speaker 3: Strait Islanders, but because the current legal framework didn't allow
Speaker 3: for it, and that's changed now. That's what doctor Wesley
Speaker 3: Morgan told me this week. He's a research associate at
Speaker 3: the Institute for Climate Risk and Response at UNSW Doctor
Speaker 3: Morgan believes that this advisory opinion could change the outcome
Speaker 3: of that case if there were to be an appeal.
Speaker 2: So, Shane, this is a huge victory for the group
Speaker 2: of law students who first came up with this idea
Speaker 2: way back in twenty nineteen. How do they feel about
Speaker 2: the outcome.
Speaker 3: I speak to Cynthia just after the advisory opinion was delivered,
Speaker 3: and she told me she was happily exhausted.
Speaker 1: It's going to be emotional, I think emotional fust because
Speaker 1: it's been six long years.
Speaker 3: So even though this is a massive victory, I mean,
Speaker 3: they've been doing this in a volunteer capacity now for
Speaker 3: six years, and as excited as they are, I think
Speaker 3: they're also really looking forward to having some rest.
Speaker 1: I think it's cost us our youth. We've seen things
Speaker 1: the young people in our shoes, but not normally do.
Speaker 1: So we've grown with this campaign and so be emotional
Speaker 1: all that reason.
Speaker 3: One of the things Cynthia really stressed to me when
Speaker 3: I was speaking to her is that this advisory opinion,
Speaker 3: it doesn't solve the climate crisis, obviously, but their best
Speaker 3: hope was that it would give the next batch of campaigners,
Speaker 3: you know, a blueprint for going forward, and that's exactly
Speaker 3: what they've done.
Speaker 1: I think my motivision has always been my islands, my people.
Speaker 1: I love my people in my islands. I don't think
Speaker 1: I've been born as Solomon Islander for a mistake. I
Speaker 1: was to be a Solomon Island because those are the
Speaker 1: people that really really need our help.
Speaker 2: Shane, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Daniel, A spokesperson for Australia's Minister for Climate Change and Energy,
Speaker 2: said the government is carefully considering the court's options. Also
Speaker 2: in the news, more than one hundred international aid organizations
Speaker 2: and human rights groups have warned of mass starvation in
Speaker 2: the Gaza Strip as the Israeli militaries is it's starting
Speaker 2: to air drop aid there. The move by the IDEA
Speaker 2: follows international condemnation by EID experts saying air dropping food
Speaker 2: is inefficient, a distraction, and could even kill starving civilians
Speaker 2: if they go awry. The United Nations has warned that
Speaker 2: one in three gardens are going days without food. At
Speaker 2: least eighty five children have died from starvation so far.
Speaker 2: Allding to Gaza's health ministry and Australia will not recognize
Speaker 2: a Palestinian state at this point, according to Prime Minister
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanesi. Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron announced he
Speaker 2: will recognize a Palestinian state at the UN in September,
Speaker 2: but Anthony Alberesi said he was only open to doing
Speaker 2: so once there were appropriate guarantees about the viability of
Speaker 2: the state, pointing to a need to exclude Hamas and
Speaker 2: ensure a Palestinian state does not threaten the existence of Israel.
Speaker 2: I'm Daniel James. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.