SYDNEY, Australia (AFP) — Five Pacific nations on Thursday plotted how to prosecute a pivotal United Nations court case that aims to hold climate-polluting countries to account and safeguard their islands’ survival.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will start hearings on 2 December in a case that will test countries’ climate obligations and whether they can be sued for failing to act.

Vanuatu’s Attorney-General Arnold Kiel Loughman told Agence France-Presse on Thursday that the case was “important” and could give climate-hit small island states more leverage to force change.

He met this week with his counterparts from Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu to discuss the case, prepare legal arguments and meet experts.

“It concerns our very livelihood because climate change affects weather patterns, it affects our land and sea and basically the environment we live in,” Loughman said.

And while there were countless international forums talking about climate change, he said there had been very little “action.” “As far as small island countries are concerned, we haven’t seen much.”

Despite emitting less than 0.02 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, Pacific nations are more exposed to climate change impacts like rising sea levels.

In 2020, Vanuatu emitted 121,000 tons of carbon dioxide, compared to neighboring Australia’s 379 million tons, according to data from the World Bank.

“For too long, our region has withstood the brunt of climate impacts while contributing the least to the crisis,” Loughman said.

He estimated the nation of roughly 313,000 people needs about $1.2 billion by 2030 to pay for climate adaptation, mitigation and to cover related losses.

‘Matter of survival’

In March 2023, United Nations members asked the Hague-based court to rule on “legal consequences” for states that “have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment,” as well as obligations to future generations.

A record 100 oral submissions will be heard over two weeks of court proceedings later this year.

The court’s final opinion will not be binding, but it can carry significant legal, moral and political weight.