Zahra Shafiq
This past September, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) gathered to discuss a multiplicity of issues and set a critical precedent in defining the sovereignty of nations.
Among the few days of international debate covering a broad range of issues, the GA set aside specific panels to discuss “the threat of sea level rise” as an item of the “highest priority.” The countries most affected by the impacts of climate-based sea level rise, also known as small island developing states or SIDS, were particularly concerned. This is because the loss caused by encroaching shorelines threatened their people's and property's physical security. This means climate change could erase their very existence.
This threat of displacement would render inhabitants of the SIDS perpetual refugees if the land they wish to return to ceases to exist. At the GA, the leaders of these countries more critically wished to settle this and another, slightly different question. They were vying for international aid and rehabilitation in circumstances where the Earth’s climate makes living conditions dire. But, they were more critically petitioning for the confirmation that their state and national sovereignty would persist even in the event of their homeland disappearing, fully engulfed by the ocean.
The group of countries defined as SIDS are the enumerated nations threatened by sea level rise. They are represented by the Alliance of Small Island States, or AOSIS, composed of various South China Sea (AIS), Caribbean, Pacific, African, and Indian Ocean islands. The member nations that comprise this global organization share the issue of rising sea levels and displacement, meaning they also share the imminent threat of cultural extinction.
The request for a recognition of their perpetual, legal, and documented existence was approved. In the specific case of SIDS, their statehood and sovereignty will be maintained if sea level rise is significant. In exchange, it was also ruled that the standing UN maritime zones will equally persist in the event of significant sea level rise.
At the GA, the Prime Minister of Samoa and current Chair of AOSIS, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, stated, “We’ve stayed firm - our states, maritime zones, and rights remain intact under international law, no matter the rising seas: we are here to stay.”
Her language at the GA is rooted in policy. With the recent studies done by NASA and coverage from the past year on the significant threat of sea levels surging, the angle AOSIS and the SIDS need to take must use fundamental policy logic to convey the direness of the threat to their sovereignty. Otherwise, the GA would have no room or obligation to hear the case. The case must be taken as a single scenario to which this ruling applies and is not a precedent.
This is critical, as the precedent this ruling sets is potentially applicable past SIDS and onto continental states, which would certainly induce petitions from any group who feels they are now unfairly nationalized, assimilated, or silenced on their national roots.
Previously irreconcilable cases like that between Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish in Turkey and Syria, or those pertaining to Native Americans and their land lost throughout the entire North American continent would again be available for petition. The logic that if displaced, members of AOSIS and SIDS would maintain their status as citizens of their home countries but with no homeland is obvious but not exactly enumerated. It would be a massive debate.
Past policy, the other facet of the case for SIDS to retain their sovereignty in the event of natural displacement, has to do with the land these countries are on. The land has a “deep connection to [their] communities, natural environment, resources, lives, livelihoods, identities, culture, and traditional knowledge,” as the AOSIS leader’s September 25th declaration states; however, they argue that “a state once established will continue to exist and endure” even if its cultural roots become physically moot.
This language and logic, too, can be almost copied and pasted into the cases presented by Palestinians, Māori, and colonized groups. However, the UN is protected by its undeniable authority as one of the highest functioning bodies of international law. Meaning there is little to no check on them, let alone any recourse if the UN chooses to ignore certain petitions, change previous rules of enforcement, or dismiss a case brought to them.
However, the effects of this ruling in 2024 on the specific issue of SIDS are not restricted to SIDS as rising sea levels, unfortunately, “will occur regardless of whether greenhouse gas emissions change in the coming years,” according to a 2024 study by NASA. They reviewed the region “at the request of several Pacific Island nations” with the support of the U.S. Department of State.
However, calling the assembly to rule on rising sea levels is overdue. In November 1989, the Malé in Maldives released a declaration on global warming and its impact on rising sea levels. The original alarm targeting the issue was largely ignored to become the future problem. And here we are, in the future, with no choice but to move forward.
Comments