From Vulnerability to Rights: The Bonaire Climate Case and Island Communities

[Aikaterini [Katerina] Tsampi is Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Groningen and Rapporteur of the International Law Association (ILA) Study Group on “International Law, Human Rights and Islands”]

On 28 January 2026 the District Court of The Hague (Court) issued its first-instance judgment in Greenpeace Netherlands v. The State of the Netherlands (the original Dutch text). The claimant alleged that the Dutch State failed to adequately protect the island of Bonaire, in Caribbean Netherlands, from the effects of climate change and treated its inhabitants unequally compared to those in the European Netherlands, in violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR.

The case, known as “the Bonaire Climate case”, immediately made headlines around the globe. It is set to be a proud successor to the Urgenda case and will certainly attract the attention and commentaries of the legal community on climate change. In this context, the purpose of this blog is not to focus on the case from a strict climate change perspective but to discuss instead its islands-related angles and, more precisely, the connection of international human rights obligations to islandness.

The Court’s Findings in Brief

The first group of findings of the Court in the Bonaire Climate judgment pertained to the “overall assessment of all mitigation and adaptation measures as a whole taken by the Dutch State” under Article 8 ECHR (para 10.24.5). The Court also examined, under the same provision, “the right to live and practise one’s own culture” as referred to in Article 27 of the ICCPR to the extent that it “is also protected by Article 8 of the ECHR” (para 10.6).

It found in particular that the Dutch legislation in the field of mitigation failed to meet the minimum standards agreed within the UN context (para 11.17). The Court also found that the State failed to adequately and timely fulfil its duty of care regarding climate adaptation for Bonaire. Despite long-standing awareness of the island’s particular vulnerability to climate change, no integrated adaptation plan has been adopted (para 11.24), even as climate impacts have increasingly affected residents and projections show that by 2050 large low-lying areas containing housing and cultural heritage are likely to be inundated (para 11.24.2). This failure was compounded by insufficient scientific research on local climate impacts, which has only been conducted since around 2017 (para 11.25), and by the absence of secured funding for key adaptation policies and measures (para 11.26), leading the court to conclude that the State breached its duty of care (para 11.28).

The Court found that the State failed to adequately justify the unequal treatment of Bonaire and its inhabitants regarding the speed and implementation of climate adaptation measures (para 11.46). Although the State argued that a different approach is warranted due to geographical, climatic and geological differences between Bonaire and the European Netherlands, as well as Bonaire’s status as part of the Netherlands only since 2010, and maintained that the distinction is not based on personal characteristics and that equal protection is afforded in principle (paras 11.38.1–11.38.2), the Court was not convinced by these arguments. Given that Bonaire faces more immediate and severe climate risks, has already suffered concrete damage, and lacks sufficient local capacity to protect its population, there is in fact a greater urgency to adopt a coherent and integrated climate adaptation policy than in the European Netherlands (para 11.46). The State also failed to explain why such a policy was implemented in the European Netherlands in 2016 while, nearly a decade later, no comparable plan exists for Bonaire (para 11.46). As the arguments advanced do not demonstrate that the difference in treatment serves a legitimate aim or is necessary and proportionate (paras 11.23-11.27, 11.46), the Court concluded that Articles 14 and 1 of Protocol No. 12, read in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR, have been violated (para 11.47).

Human Rights Violations based on Islandness?

The Bonaire Climate ruling did not arise in a vacuum. The Court drew on prior climate change determinations by international courts, notably the ICJ 2025 Advisory Opinion (para 5.26). It also cited the Advisory Opinion of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights, placing particular emphasis on that court’s observations regarding the vulnerability of Caribbean islands.(e.g. fn 5). Considering the legal context of the case, the Court unsurprisingly:

“takes the legal framework set out in the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment [issued by the European Court of Human Rights] as its starting point”.

(para 10.7)

What is groundbreaking in the Bonaire Climate judgment is the way it focuses on human rights obligations of States toward their own islands and their communities, based in particular, on the interpretation of the ECHR. The Dutch judges note that:

“[t]his case will […] examine whether the State is fulfilling its obligation to protect its inhabitants – in this case specifically the inhabitants of Bonaire”.

(para 9.2)

While islands have been recognized as vulnerable by courts in prior instances – such as in the Advisory Opinion of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights – the Bonaire Climate judgment integrates the double standards these vulnerabilities imply directly into the human rights analysis of the climate emergency. The ICJ Advisory Opinion has also been interpreted as a victory for islands, initiated by island stakeholders. Technically, however, the ICJ did not focus on island justice per se, and separate opinions highlighted relevant gaps.

For instance, Vice-President Sebutinde emphasized that the ICJ did not fully address the consequences of climate change for small island states peoples, noting that indigenous communities’ rights, statehood, and self-determination remain underexplored. Similarly, Judge Charlesworth highlighted the plight of “climate-vulnerable groups,” citing impacts on communities in Kiribati, Tonga, and Tuvalu – from educational opportunities to cultural practices – and concluded that States have a particular obligation to protect the human rights of vulnerable groups.

The Bonaire Climate judgment represents progress in the interpretation of human rights obligations for two main reasons, as far as human rights law and islands is concerned. First, it links island cultures to human rights obligations. The Inter-American Court had previously referred to the vulnerable cultural heritage of small island States in the context of climate change (para 449) but islands within other States may be equally exposed as the Bonaire Climate case illustrates. The views adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee in Daniel Billy et al. v Australia shows how human rights frameworks can encompass small island communities but its focus was in particular on indigenous communities (paras 8.13-8.14). In the Bonaire Climate case, indigeneity is not involved, and the Court centers island culture itself, even though the term is not explicitly used. As per the claimant’s submissions, the culture of the inhabitants of Bonaire is entitled to the same level of protection as that afforded to the culture of an “indigenous people” within the meaning of Article 27 ICCPR, since that culture shares many of the same substantive characteristics (para 19.22). Islandness is the common ground here, without it being explicitly named by the parties or the Court. Islanders have the right to remain islanders. The Court in the Bonaire Climate judgment considers research highlighting the threats that climate change poses to both tangible heritage – such as slave and fisherman’s huts, lighthouses, and salt pans – and intangible heritage, including traditional fishing and agricultural practices (paras 4.28-4.29).

Second, the Bonaire Climate judgment addresses discrimination against the islanders, a finding absent in prior human rights contentious cases. Although the judgment does not specify the precise ground of discrimination – when it referred to the “ethnic criterion”, it did so when setting out general principles on indirect discrimination (para 11.44);  the Court considers territorial characteristics, with a focus on island vulnerability (para 11.46, fn 293).

Technically, of course, the juxtaposition undertaken by the Court is between the Caribbean and European Netherlands, rather than between Dutch islands and the Dutch mainland per se. Dutch islands in the European neighbourhood, such as the Wadden Islands, are not immune to the impact of climate change. In that sense, a clearer articulation of how the condition of being an island constitutes the determinative ground could be developed in future jurisprudence.

Intersectional vulnerabilities can also be further considered. Judge Charlesworth, in her separate opinion on the ICJ climate change Advisory Opinion, addressed women as an important climate vulnerable group and in this context, it takes note of the fact that in some small island States, women hold traditional responsibilities to safeguard their communities (para 19). She further observed that the effects of climate change in some small island developing States are likely to lead to the closure of schools, affecting the educational future for children (para 21). She noted that many people experience intersecting forms of discrimination, while also citing the IPCC’s finding that:

“[t]he intersection of gender with race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, Indigenous identity, age, disability, income, migrant status, and geographical location often compounds vulnerability to climate change impacts (very high confidence), exacerbates inequity, and creates further injustice (high confidence)”.

(para 24)

For islands, “geographical location” is a particularly salient factor and its intersection with other discrimination grounds require further attention.

Overall, the Bonaire Climate case demonstrates that small islands are not only affected by climate change but also rights-holders entitled to specific legal protection, even if the Dutch judges do not yet articulate a full framework for “island justice” be it for the island communities and/or the island itself. In sum, while the judgment does not exhaustively capture all island narratives, it advances our understanding of human rights obligations toward island communities. By addressing culture, discrimination, and the unique vulnerabilities of small islands, the case provides a foundation for future claims and significantly contributes to the emerging discourse on climate justice for islands. Its ultimate impact on island futures and justice will depend on how subsequent jurisprudence interprets and builds upon these precedents.

A Ruling with Implications Beyond Climate Change?

The Bonaire Climate ruling is clearly framed around climate change and the Netherlands’ obligations toward Bonaire and its inhabitants. However, climate change is only one of several interrelated issues that expose the structural vulnerabilities faced by island territories. Islanders often grapple with everyday concerns that differ markedly from those widely discussed in academic or policy debates on climate change – such as access to education and healthcare, and other basic public services – yet these needs are frequently sidelined. Against this backdrop, the judgment’s emphasis on unequal treatment, urgency, and the State’s duty of care may have significance beyond climate adaptation alone. The Dutch judges implicitly challenge the persistent double standards that leave island populations feeling like second-class citizens; addressing such double standards is something that international human rights law needs to seriously encompass as far as the entire spectrum of rights is concerned. In this sense, the mandate of the newly established ILA Study Group on International Law, Human Rights and Islands has big shoes to fill and comes at a crucial moment, being presented with the opportunity to explore a timely legal framework for addressing not only climate-related harms, but also wider patterns of structural inequality affecting island communities.