Ocean

Q&A: Making a case for Vanuatu’s survival in the highest court

Historical emitters should face legal consequences, argues the country's attorney general Arnold Kiel Loughman
<p>Vanuatu’s attorney general Arnold Kiel Loughman speaking at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands (Image: Frank van Beek / ICJ-CIJ)</p>

Vanuatu’s attorney general Arnold Kiel Loughman speaking at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands (Image: Frank van Beek / ICJ-CIJ)

Arnold Kiel Loughman grew up on Tanna, the southern island of Vanuatu in the Pacific Ocean. Now, Loughman is the attorney general of his country, where he witnesses the devastation of frequent extreme weather events: land lost to the sea, dying corals and farmlands washed away by heavy rains. 

While many larger nations ploddingly weigh emission cuts against development, small island states like Loughman’s have no choice but to deal with a crisis they did not create. 

For them, it’s a matter of survival. 

In December, Loughman stood at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands – the world’s highest court – to argue that high-emission states should be held accountable under international law. He was there for hearings designed to clarify the obligations of the states responsible for climate change. 

“How can the conduct that has taken humanity to the brink of catastrophe, threatening the survival of entire peoples, be lawful and without consequences?” Loughman asked during the opening arguments.

large wave crashing into building
Cyclones have become more frequent and severe in Vanuatu (Image: Sami Sarkis Travel / Alamy)

Dialogue Earth spoke with Loughman ahead of the ICJ’s delivery of its advisory opinion on the case, which he expects in July. We discussed what it could mean for climate change and his people’s future.

Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Dialogue Earth: When did climate change come to be something you needed to know about as a lawyer?

Loughman: I’m not a scientist. I’m a lawyer, and I do litigation in domestic courts. Climate change never came to me until I was appointed as the attorney general. I’ve been the attorney general for the past nine years.

After the resolution was passed at the UN General Assembly in 2023, the case arrived at my office, and that’s when I got involved in it. 

Vanuatu’s role in international climate litigation

In 2021, Vanuatu, a Pacific Islands state of 320,000 people, began seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the obligations of states responsible for climate change. It also aimed to clarify the legal consequences of the obligations, which provide footings for future litigations on loss and damage caused by climate change. 

As support for the campaign grew, Vanuatu presented it to the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The resulting resolution, adopted by consensus in 2023, led to International Court of Justice hearings in December 2024.

Vanuatu is also a part of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (Cosis), which in 2022 sought an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Itlos). Itlos ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution, and countries are legally responsible for controlling them.

Do you personally feel the impact of climate change?

Oh yes. I grew up on an island. My village is on the coast, and I see it. Sometimes you take your kids down to the ocean, to the beach, and you tell them: “Oh, look, we used to stand there.” It brings a feeling of nostalgia. 

Arnold Kiel Loughman
Loughman at 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France (Image: Regina Lam / Dialogue Earth)

I remember as a little boy growing up fishing and diving for fish. But now, the fish are not there anymore. The corals are not alive, and therefore the fish are not there. These are things from the past. You can only talk about them to your kids. They can’t experience what you experienced.

Climate change impacts also happen on land. We have cyclones becoming much more frequent and severe. The hurricanes come with very heavy rains, which cause flooding and wash away all the farmlands. My island, Tanna, is a volcanic island, and its soil is very fertile. But the food production is no longer what it used to be. 

What will you do after the ICJ provides its advisory opinion? How might you use the result to improve the situation?

The ICJ decision will be non-binding. There is no mechanism to enforce it. It’s always asked: “What good is it when it’s non-binding and there is no mechanism to enforce it?”

That’s true. But when it’s coming from the highest court, the judicial arm of the United Nations, you simply can’t ignore it. 

We’re hoping that the ICJ will clarify what the states’ obligations are and what the consequences will be if the states are in breach of them. 

We hope the clarification will become part of international law, instead of being some general statement that we find in the Paris Agreement or UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change], where states can make pledges and then go, and nothing comes out of it.

Could you start taking high emitters to court?

When you talk about litigation, you start talking about compensation, loss and damage. Compensation can never put you back to your original state, but it can help you adapt to the changing environment.

Unlike contentious cases between states, the advisory opinions of the ICJ and Itlos [the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] are non-contentious cases, where states, NGOs, civil societies submit their views of the obligations of states to protect the marine environment or the climate system. 

But when you talk about litigation against corporate entities or states … that’s a whole different game. It’s a decision for the government. When you’re taking on high corporate entities, big emitters, you have to be conscious of legal obligation, ramifications and implications – such as financial and diplomatic implications.

We are still waiting for the ICJ decision, and I am not aware of any litigation plans now. That will be the political decision made by the government. I’m not a politician.

How does the United States’ current position on climate change alter things? They pulled back from the Paris Agreement and do not seem interested in multilateralism.

For some people, it is a worry. But it was not a surprise to us. When the UN General Assembly voted on the resolution for seeking the advisory opinion on states’ obligations to combat climate change, the US abstained from it. So, with that, it wasn’t surprising. 

That doesn’t hinder us from doing what we want to see.

How easy has it been for a country like Vanuatu to engage in the processes of the ICJ?

This has been one of the cases that has propelled Vanuatu out there in the international arena. It has given us and other small Pacific states the opportunity to engage in the ICJ, to contribute to the development of international law.

Oh yes. I grew up on an island. My village is on the coast, and I see it.

As small island developing states, when we go to sit at the table for negotiation, we have no leverage. It is especially the case when you negotiate with big superpowers: the US, China and the EU.  

But international law through the ICJ is probably the best way a small island state like Vanuatu can speak, and everybody listens. It gives you a platform. 

For the first time, as far as I was aware, the Pacific small island developing states were in The Hague. We were all there together, making submissions. It’s never happened before. 

Are you positive about the chances of real action being taken, about climate change being combated, or does it feel a bit depressing from the perspective of Vanuatu?

We have to be optimistic. 

I am hopeful that we will get something concrete out of it, given the decision of Itlos. When you look at the ICJ’s case, for the first time, more than 130 states supported Vanuatu’s initiative to seek an opinion on climate change obligations.

Hopefully, when we get a strong decision in our favour, we can then begin to see some real changes, instead of just rhetoric.

-->