Torres Strait地区的两位土著长老Pabai Pabai和Paul Kabai正在推进一项具有里程碑意义的法律诉讼，要求澳大利亚政府承担因气候变化造成的文化损失责任。[1]这两位长老分别居住在Boigu Island和Saibai Island，两座岛屿的地势极为低洼，最高点分别仅为3米和1.7米。[1]由于Torres Strait地区海平面上升的速度是全球平均水平的两倍，[1]科学家预测若全球变暖继续，多个低洼岛屿将在2050年前无人居住。[1]
两位长老自2021年起诉澳大利亚政府未能保护他们免受气候变化影响。[1]他们声称海平面上升将使他们失去进行Ailan Kastom（岛屿传统文化）相关活动的能力，包括文化仪式、教学、埋葬仪式和照顾圣地。[1]初审法官Michael Wigney驳回了诉讼，认定政府没有照顾义务，并以排放减少目标属于核心政策决定超出法院权限为由，拒绝了他们的诉求。[1]然而初审法院同时认定，政府在2015年、2020年和2021年设定排放目标时未考虑最佳可用科学。[1]
目前，两位长老已向联邦全法院提起上诉，主张政府违反了《巴黎协定》的1.5°C目标承诺。[1]此案有可能在澳大利亚法律中创设气候变化相关的新型照顾义务以及文化损失赔偿的先例。[1]
Two indigenous elders from Australia's Torres Strait region are appealing to the Full Federal Court, challenging the government's response to climate change threats to their ancestral lands and cultural practices [1]. Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai initiated legal action in 2021, arguing that rising sea levels will destroy their ability to maintain traditional cultural practices, yet the government has failed to protect them from these climate impacts [1]. An initial court dismissed their case, with the presiding judge determining the government held no duty of care and that emission reduction targets constituted core policy decisions beyond judicial reach [1].
The stakes are particularly acute for these elders, who live on exceptionally low-lying islands. Uncle Pabai resides on Boigu Island, which reaches only 3 meters at its highest point, while Uncle Paul lives on Saibai Island, with a maximum elevation of just 1.7 meters [1]. The Torres Strait region experiences sea level rise at twice the global average rate, and scientists project that multiple low-lying islands could become uninhabitable before 2050 if global warming continues unabated [1]. The appellants contend they face imminent loss of Ailan Kastom—their island traditions—encompassing cultural ceremonies, teaching practices, burial rites, and stewardship of sacred sites [1].
In their appeal, the elders argue that the government violated its commitments under the Paris Agreement regarding the 1.5°C warming threshold [1]. The trial judge had also found that the government failed to consider the best available science when setting emission reduction targets in 2015, 2020, and 2021 [1]. A successful appeal could establish unprecedented grounds in Australian law for climate-related duty of care obligations and compensation for cultural loss [1].
