As rising seas threaten the survival of island nations like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives, the International Court of Justice has delivered a crucial advisory opinion that could redefine sovereignty, statehood, and international law in the era of climate change.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of states with respect to climate change, raising urgent questions about the future of disappearing nations. Small island states such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands are among the most vulnerable, facing rising sea levels, powerful storms, and freshwater shortages that put both survival and legal sovereignty at risk. The opinion has sparked global debate over whether countries without land can continue to exist under international law.
These nations face the grim prospect of being abandoned or swallowed by the ocean, raising a legal dilemma never before confronted: can a state without territory still be recognized as a state? For their populations, the answer has critical implications. The loss of statehood would mean displacement, the collapse of identity and culture, and the forfeiture of resources and rights in global institutions such as the United Nations. Leaders from these islands are urgently seeking guarantees to protect their futures before the seas take them away.
Tuvalu has taken bold action, signing a treaty with Australia to ensure recognition of its sovereignty even if the islands are submerged. Australia has further pledged to accept Tuvaluan citizens who emigrate, while affirming that Tuvalu will continue as a state regardless of sea-level rise. Facing physical disappearance, Tuvalu has also begun digitising itself by archiving its culture, services, and territory online in a bid to become the world’s first digital nation.
Other island states are experimenting with different solutions. In the Maldives, engineers are testing methods to raise island heights artificially. Regional efforts such as the Rising Nations Initiative are also underway, seeking to safeguard sovereignty and identity for threatened Pacific states. These measures highlight a race against time as governments confront the reality of losing not just homes but also legal recognition on the world stage.
Traditionally, international law requires four elements for a state to exist: population, territory, government, and the capacity to engage in international relations. Climate change endangers all four. If land is lost to rising seas, populations displaced, and governments made ineffective, the legal basis for statehood could collapse. Yet international law has recognized states even when some elements are missing, such as failed states like Somalia or Yemen. Whether the same flexibility can apply to permanently submerged nations is unclear.
The ICJ opinion addressed this issue directly, but its conclusion was cryptic. The court stated that “once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.” Some judges interpreted this as confirmation that a state could retain its legal existence even if submerged beneath the ocean, extending flexibility previously given to failed states. Others, however, warned that the court stopped short of explicitly affirming that a submerged state could survive in law.
For now, the ruling leaves the matter unresolved. While it suggests international law could adapt to allow statehood to persist even after land disappears, it avoids giving the definitive assurance many island nations were hoping for. As seas continue to rise, the legal future of nations facing extinction remains uncertain, and the question of who owns a country that sinks lingers over the international community.
