NZ's support for landmark climate change ruling in doubt

Foreign affairs officials will not say if New Zealand intends to support a major vote at the United Nations, backing the findings of a landmark climate change ruling.

Countries will vote at a UN General Assembly meeting in New York overnight on whether to endorse an International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion issued last year, which found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions.

The resolution was proposed by Vanuatu and has been co-sponsored by more than 60 countries, including many Pacific nations that are already threatened by sea-level rise.

New Zealand co-sponsored the original resolution in 2023 that asked the ICJ to issue the opinion on states' climate change obligations.

However, it is not a co-sponsor of the latest resolution and it is unclear what its stance is.

Asked if New Zealand would vote in favour, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said: "We have no information to share ahead of the vote."

A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters referred RNZ back to the ministry.

In an Official Information Act response provided to WWF New Zealand earlier this month, and shared with RNZ, the ministry said it was "participating actively in the negotiations" over the wording of the resolution.

"We have been in close contact with Vanuatu and other states during this process and wish to see it come to a positive outcome, in recognition of the significance of the Advisory Opinion and the process that led to it," an official wrote.

New Zealand was seeking a resolution that "accurately reflects the views of the Court as expressed in the Advisory Opinion, and that can achieve broad support from the membership of the General Assembly".

Environmental Law Initiative researcher Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield said it was a "huge backward step" for New Zealand to not openly support the resolution ahead of the vote.

"It's a reminder of how far backwards New Zealand has gone since early 2023 when that original resolution was passed."

Vanuatu and many of the co-sponsors were New Zealand's Pacific neighbours, she said.

"New Zealand's already being affected by climate change and we know that some of the hardest-hit countries are going to be some of the Pacific Island nations who are low-lying."

WWF spokesperson Teall Crossen said it was "extremely disappointing" that New Zealand was yet to confirm its support.

"This is quite an extraordinary act of diplomatic leadership by the Pacific and, as a key regional partner, we should be supporting that."

New Zealand's reluctance could be because the ICJ opinion discussed transitioning away from fossil fuels and also considered that fossil fuel expansion could be an "internationally wrongful act", she said.

"If MFAT is hesitating, I expect it would be because the current government policy is going against the ICJ ruling - for example, with reversing the offshore oil and gas ban, and potential fossil fuel subsidies in relation to the proposed LNG terminal."

The ICJ opinion would still be the "authoritative legal statement" on states' obligations even if the resolution did not pass, Prestidge-Oldfield said.

That meant it would carry weight in both international and domestic legal decisions on climate change issues, regardless of whether the New Zealand government endorsed it.

However, if the new resolution did pass, it would help to translate the opinion into practical, political action.

"In lay terms... it's the political seal of recognition of the [ICJ] decision."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.