Issue 100: Australia won't talk about the ICJAO
"I think we agree, the past is over." - former US President George Bush, March 2000.
To mark Raising Hell's 100th issue, I want to talk about something I've been working on for months now: Australia really doesn't want to talk about how it might get sued for continuing to expand its fossil fuel production. If you need a refresher: the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (ICJAO) on the obligations of states with respect to climate change was a landmark decision in international law handed down in July 2025. What started as a campaign by law students in the Pacific Islands ended with a unanimous decision by the highest court in the world—the one government's love to ignore. Though non-binding, the ICJAO found that countries are liable for climate harms in international law, even where they do not participate, or necessarily uphold, international climate treaties like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
For Australia, this was bad news. Australia argued, alongside other developed countries, that the UNFCCC was the primary vehicle in international law to respond to climate change—a view that was roundly rejected by the court. The ramifications for major fossil fuel producers like Australia is profound, as the decision opens the way for the country to be sued for its continued fossil fuel expansion. If you want more, I reported on what it meant with Drilled here:
Since the decision, Australian government officials have done their best to avoid talking about it. Even at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where I was on the ground as one of two Australian journalists present, there was a total refusal to engage with the substance of the decision, or what the government was thinking. At one point, the current head of DCCEEW appeared to take exception when I asked about the decision during an appearance on a panel. The answer they gave then, as now, is that Australia is "carefully reviewing" the decision.
In fairness, it was probably too soon for the full legal ramifications to filter through, though it has now been several months and there is still nothing. If we're being fair again, there has been quite a bit going on out in the world, including a global fossil fuel supply crisis. With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen currently serving as Co-President for Negotiations at the next climate COP in Antalya, Turkey, I'd suggest it is not unreasonable to expect a democratically elected government in a liberal democracy to have something to say to its citizens about a significant event with ramifications for its national economy and decision making class.
Apparently not.
To get a better sense for how the Australian government has been grappling with the decision, I have been attempting to use Freedom of Information to read the discussions. So far, it is not exactly been fruitful. Legal advice, rightly, is exempt from disclosure, however it appears that anything substantial relating to the ICJAO beyond the usual talking points has been classified as legal advice, particularly where Australia's submissions to the decision and the outcome have been compared. Instead, what we get are talking points. The best insight we get into how the bureaucracy and government are responding in this moment come in snippets. For example, a brief released by the Attorney General's Department late last week offered a tantalising glimpse into Australia's attempt to rewrite history. Here's the relevant section:
It would be easy to miss these comments in the broader documents but what they suggest is a certain defensiveness after the Office of International Law misfired completely and the court rejected Australia's argument outright. As part of its diplomatic efforts to reset ties with the Pacific, Australia supported Vanuatu in prosecuting its case at the ICJ but ultimately argued against the thrust of Vanuatu's position in court—and then lost. This was widely reported at the time. Here is the key line from The Guardian:
The country’s solicitor-general, Stephen Donaghue, said Australia’s view was that the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement had been widely adopted, and that customary international law should not extend beyond those frameworks.
The result is a classic attempt by the Australian government to rewrite history where the political narrative is not convenient and can't be controlled. I still have several other applications in on this issue and need to wait for them to resolve, before I can do anything with this material. Until then, I am continuing to chip away.
Good Reads
Because we here at Raising Hell know how much you love homework…
- Andrew Cockburn from the London Review of Books has this review of a new book on the history of European intelligence agencies collaborating with the Israeli Mossad, and the review is worth a read in its own right.
"Many books about climate change are worthy but dull. Slick, however, is as readable as it is shocking." - Richard Denniss, The Australia Institute, writing in The Conversation.
Reporting In
Where I recap what I’ve been doing this last fortnight so you know I’m not just using your money to stimulate the local economy …
- ‘U.S. and Japanese Government-Funded Foreign Policy Think Tanks Want Australia to Keep Pumping the Gas' (Drilled, 30 March 2026).
- I've spent a good part of last week fixing for a French reporting team from ARTE who were looking to do a story on croc's in the Northern Territory. Yes, you read that right: crocs as pet. I can go low, and I can go high.
- It's confirmed, I've entered the Walkley Mid-Year Awards and I'll be helping to judge the Tasmanian media awards in two categories this year.
- I also have a big new commission—not a book—that I've been contracted to work on and will announce soon.
Before You Go (Go)…
- Want to get in touch? Message me on Signal at username RoyceK.11. Alternatively you can send hard copies to: PO Box 134, Welland SA 5007
- And if you’ve come this far, consider supporting me further by picking up one of my books, leaving a review or by just telling a friend about Raising Hell!