If global warming continues unchecked, the Pacific archipelago will sink into the sea within decades.
April 5, 2026, 9:03 p.mApril 5, 2026, 9:03 p.m
Daniel Haller / ch media
It is the literal battle of David against Goliath. And as in the biblical original, it is about the existence of a people. The USA is trying to prevent a new UN resolution from the Pacific island state of Vanuatu using pressure and diplomatic means.
Vanuatu is an island nation in the South Pacific that includes around 80 islands and stretches over a length of 1,300 km.Image: keystone
Although the exact wording is not yet available to the public, Vanuatu’s thrust is clear: In the resolution, Vanuatu calls on UN member states to phase out fossil fuels and protect communities being forcibly relocated due to climate change. The proposed creation of an international climate damage register is particularly controversial. This would facilitate global liability and compensation claims.
Vanuatu relies on a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague: In July 2025, the UN’s highest court announced a unanimous legal opinion according to which the 1.5 degree climate target is binding for the member states. The ICJ defined climate protection as a legal obligation and thus went further than all previous climate agreements.
Combating the climate crisis is therefore not just an option that states can choose to a greater or lesser extent as they wish, but rather a duty under international law. Courts can order states to take more consistent climate action; likewise one state sues another. When making their determination, the judges in The Hague based, among other things, the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the lawsuit brought by the Swiss climate seniors.
US ambassadors should lobby against Vanuatu
Business lawyers emphasize that this paradigm shift will also affect private companies. The global law firm Bird & Bird writes: “States can be held accountable for the actions or omissions of private actors (…). As a result, government decisions – such as granting licenses or investments – that do not combat climate change or even contribute to climate change (…) can be challenged in court.”
This is why alarm bells are ringing in the USA. Accordingly, the government of the climate denier Trump is commissioning the US ambassadors to lobby against Vanuatu’s resolution worldwide: The US rejects the resolution “emphatically” because it “could pose a major threat to US industry”. The US diplomats should work with the host states to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw the resolution.
The US State Department emphasizes: “This UN General Assembly resolution is another example of UN overreach and part of a broader pattern of attempts (…) to invent alleged legal obligations aimed at assigning blame and promoting unfounded claims and inferring human rights obligations to which states have not agreed,” the AP agency quotes from the cable to US embassies.
“In the current geopolitical context, a sustained commitment to the rule of law is more important than ever,” explains Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change. “At a time when respect for international law is under pressure worldwide, this initiative reaffirms the central role of the International Court of Justice and the importance of multilateral cooperation.”
Switzerland is still discussing
The discussion is still ongoing in the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA): “Switzerland welcomes the report in which the ICJ sets out important key points of current international law regarding climate,” EDA spokesman Pierre-Alain Eltschinger told this newspaper when asked. Switzerland has “not yet taken a final position” on Vanuatu’s resolution. However, she actively participates in the discussions.”
The customs negotiations with the USA would not play a role in the assessment. What is crucial for Switzerland, however, is “that new legal obligations are not created through the back door and that no new, parallel or competing structures to the existing climate regime are created.”
However, there is support from civil society: Amnesty International is in favor of the resolution. In a letter to governments, Human Rights Watch demands that they agree to it. And the Pacific Conference of Churches expresses its “strong, prayerful and unequivocal support” for the draft resolution. (aargauerzeitung.ch)