Abstract

This body of work aims to explain why a small island state would choose an advisory opinion at an international court as a strategy for pursuing environmental justice. Since this is not a common course of action in literature regarding small state advocacy, this choice stands out as an interesting departure which merits future studying. What was found throughout my research based on a constructivist and liberal framework is the fact that Vanuatu’s choice of strategy was heavily based on the current normative environment and the opportunity structures that emerged from negotiations. This is due to the fact that Vanuatu behaved both as a self-interested state weighing its options according to a cost-benefit analysis, as well a norm entrepreneur seeking to pursue the most legitimate route available. Through the use of process tracing delineating Vanuatu’s preference formation and decision making in regard to environmental justice, the choice of an advisory opinion at the International Court of Justice is made apparent by Vanuatu’s willingness to pursue the most legitimate avenue at its disposal. The key findings stemming from this analysis are then that a small state can act as more than its capacities indicate, and that it can do so by carefully weighing its choice of strategy and discourse. I would go as far as saying that this research highlights the strength of small states in international negotiations. More broadly, Vanuatu’s case showcases a positive outlook for small state advocacy and environmental justice no matter the verdict given by the ICJ.