ICJ ADVISORY OPINION ON CLIMATE JUSTICE

THE CONTEXT: The United Nations General Assembly (March 2023) asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify states’ climate obligations. The Court delivered its Advisory Opinion on 23 July 2025, stressing that climate change is “an urgent and existential threat” and that both treaty and customary international law impose duties to curb greenhouse‑gas emissions and aid vulnerable nations.

• • The opinion explicitly upholds the tripartite treaty architecture- UNFCCC (1992), Kyoto Protocol (1997), and Paris Agreement (2015) rejecting the narrative that Paris alone governs present obligations.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

• • Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR‑RC): Originating in Article 3 of the UNFCCC, it recognises historical emissions and capacity gaps.
  • Equity & Climate Justice: The Court affirms equity as a cross‑cutting norm guiding treaty interpretation, extending beyond explicit treaty clauses.
  • No‑Harm Principle: States must prevent, reduce, and control transboundary environmental harm; climate change re‑scales this duty globally.
  • Human‑Rights Linkage: Failure to mitigate is framed as a potential breach of the rights to life, health, and culture—an angle increasingly used in national courts.

SALIENT FINDINGS OF THE ICJ OPINION:

• • Dual Source of Duties: Mitigation and adaptation obligations flow from both treaty law (UNFCCC family) and customary international law; non‑parties are not off the hook.
  • Obligations of Conduct, Not Absolute Result: States must adopt and implement policies consistent with the Paris temperature goal, submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on time, and mobilise finance and technology; breach is assessed case‑by‑case.
  • Wrongful Acts & Reparations: Failure to act commensurately with capacity and historical emissions can constitute an “internationally wrongful act,” triggering reparation claims by affected states or peoples.
  • Continuing Relevance of Annex I/II: Developed countries retain enhanced obligations for finance, technology transfer, and capacity‑building.

SCIENTIFIC & NORMATIVE BASIS OF THE 1.5 °C EMPHASIS:

• • The Court interprets COP‑26 (Glasgow) and COP‑28 (Dubai) decisions as evidence of consensus that 1.5 °C is now the operational target, effectively superseding the Paris “well below 2 °C” ceiling.
  • Critics argue this relies on selective reading of IPCC AR6 headlines and overlooks equity‑based carbon‑budget sharing that still allows higher transitional warming.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GLOBAL SOUTH & INDIA:

• • Carbon‑Space Crunch: The opinion’s 1.5 °C alignment, without explicit equitable division, shrinks available carbon budgets for developing countries striving for poverty eradication.
  • Finance & Technology: ICJ stresses developed states’ duty to provide adequate, predictable finance—echoing India‑led calls at the SB‑62 Bonn talks for transparent accounting of the USD 100 billion pledge and a higher “new collective quantified goal.”
  • Litigation Leverage: Vulnerable nations and civil‑society groups gain new jurisprudential ammunition to seek compensation but still must prove attribution and causation.

INDIAN POLICY LANDSCAPE:

• • India’s Updated NDC‑2 (2022) pledges a 45 percent reduction in emissions intensity (2005 baseline) and 50 percent cumulative installed power capacity from non‑fossil sources by 2030, progressing toward net‑zero by 2070.
  • National initiatives such as Green Hydrogen Mission (2023), LiFE—Lifestyle for Environment (2022), and sovereign Green Bonds (₹16,000 crore issued FY 2023‑24) showcase domestic conduct obligations.
  • However, India lacks a dedicated Climate Change Act to codify obligations, set just‑transition planning, and enable court‑enforceable carbon budgets.

THE CHALLENGES:

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Enact a Comprehensive Climate Responsibility Act: Define carbon budgets, create an independent “National Climate Commission,” and embed public‑trust principles for judicial oversight. Phase targets align with Panchamrit yet allow adaptive revision.
  • Scale Blended‑Finance Platforms: Expand the Sovereign Green‑Bond framework into a Green Finance Facility co‑guaranteed by Multilateral Development Banks to derisk private flows for green hydrogen, EV, and grid upgrades. Leverage G‑20 presidency outcomes on MDB capital adequacy.
  • Mandate Equitable Carbon‑Budgeting in Sectoral Plans: Use economy‑wide carbon‑intensity caps, disaggregated for power, industry, and transport, ensuring fair allocation to states based on Human Development Index and poverty levels. Provide fiscal transfers for states meeting targets.
  • Integrate Loss‑and‑Damage Needs in Disaster Management Act: Establish a National Climate Loss Register documenting extreme‑event costs to seek international reparations bolstered by the ICJ opinion. Harmonise with State Disaster Relief Funds for quick disbursement.
  • Fast‑track Just‑Transition Skilling Missions: Map coal‑dependent districts, allot reskilling vouchers, and create Green Enterprise Zones with tax holidays. Align with PM‑Kaushal Vikas Yojana to absorb displaced workers.
  • Operationalise Technology Access Pools: Use India’s strong pharmaceutical waiver diplomacy model to push for IP pools on storage batteries and carbon‑capture technologies under the WTO’s Trade‑Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) flexibilities. Offer voluntary licensing with South‑South partners.
  • Carbon Farming & Green Credits: Conclude rules under the Green Credit Programme (2023) to monetise soil‑carbon sequestration and agro‑forestry, ensuring Minimum Support Prices account for ecosystem services. Redirect subsidy savings from conventional fertilisers.
  • Strategic Use of Climate Litigation: Empower National Green Tribunal benches to take suo‑motu cognisance of the ICJ opinion where state inaction breaches inter‑generational equity. Provide legal‑aid cells for vulnerable communities to file petitions.
  • Diplomatic Coalition‑Building: Lead a “Like‑Minded Mega‑Emitters Coalition” (LMEC) with China, Brazil, and South Africa to demand equitable carbon budgets at COP‑30 (Belém). Use ICJ opinion as moral leverage for finance and technology pledges.

THE CONCLUSION:

Enact an Equity‑based Climate Responsibility Act that hard‑wires carbon budgets to poverty‑eradication metrics and mobilises ₹3 lakh‑crore in blended green finance, converting the ICJ’s advisory opinion into enforceable, growth‑positive duties at home. Parallelly, lead a South‑South “Carbon Justice Alliance” to secure a USD 1 trillion loss‑and‑damage and technology‑sharing facility at COP‑30, realigning global climate action with fair development pathways.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Describe the major outcomes of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What are the commitments made by India in this conference? 2021

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. The International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion has been hailed as a milestone in climate jurisprudence. Critically analyse its significance for the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR‑RC).

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/what-did-the-icj-opinion-say-on-climate-obligations-explained/article69869053.ece