If you can spare your mind from the big questions of life like, well, Wimbledon, give this one a thought: can international law oblige states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and pay compensation for the adverse effects of climate change upon a country or its citizens?

That was the question posed in a competition run by Oxfam International, the Climate Justice Programme and Advocates for International Development. Entrants were given a brief from the environment minister of a fictitious small, mid-latitude, developing country. The fishing and farming population of ‘Algoria’ would be hit hard by the impact of climate change. The challenge was to advise the minister on a cause of action, whom to sue and what remedy should be sought, while advancing the strongest legal case to demonstrate that rich countries’ greenhouse gas emissions violate the human rights of people in developing countries.

The winning entry was submitted by Australian lawyer Keely Boom and gives Canberra a very hard time. ‘Australia’s historical and continuing contribution to anthropogenic climate change has had, and continues to have, an impact upon the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in the present covenant as held by the citizens of the State of Algoria. This process of transboundary environmental harm demon­strates that the greenhouse gas emissions of Australia constitute a means through which Australia is exercising power or a form of effective control over individuals in Algoria.’ Monetary compen­sation is sought.

And the submission warns sternly: ‘Due to length restrictions, this complaint has been restricted to Australia as defendant. A joint complaint could be made against multiple nations.’

You can read the full entry at www.climatelaw.org. But something tells Obiter we haven’t heard the last of this one – or Ms Boom.