Is ICJ's ruling on climate change merely symbolic?
Climate change poses an 'urgent and existential threat,' the court said.
It held that climate action is not based on any one law but is rather a mix of international law provisions like the UN charter, and international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Paris Agreement, among others, and that they should influence the actions that member states take to protect the environment.
The Court also ruled that countries bear the responsibility of protecting the earth's climate systems, reduce emissions and limit global warming.
Several countries have hailed the Court's decision, saying that it adds heft to humanity's fight against climate change.
The ruling hits all the right notes -- it places human rights at the forefront of the fight against global warming. But, is it merely symbolic, given it is an advisory opinion and not enforceable?
Guest: Dr. Vaibhav Chaturvedi, The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)
Host: Nivedita V
Edited by Sharmada venkatasubramanian
Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
15 hours ago
- Economic Times
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
Reuters FILE: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson signs the U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Religion vs dissent: Which right wins?
The Supreme Court has, through multiple judgments, affirmed the right to protest while imposing 'reasonable restrictions' on its exercise in public spaces. The Court's rationale has been that the right to protest cannot be exercised at the expense of public order, with considerations such as the smooth flow of traffic weighing on the court's mind. As the Kanwar Yatra ended this year, the Delhi Police saw a surge in complaints on traffic congestion, excessive noise and disturbances well into the night over the span of a few days. There have been reports of hooliganism, aggression and violence by the kanwariyas. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. (ANI) There are few legal challenges to these acts or restrictions on the Kanwar Yatra. Religious practice, the reasoning goes, must be given a longer rope. But does such accommodation on disruption of regular life in the city pass muster? Every year, several groups of kanwariyas traverse the streets of North India. In recent years, the Kanwar Yatra has grown in both popularity and scale — large trucks are hired, food stalls set up (with QR codes displaying information on the seller's religion in some places) and roaring boomboxes announce its arrival. It may seem that the yatra has turned into an opportunity for unrestrained revelry and lawlessness. Often, the yatra seems no more about personal, pious observations, but a means of loud and disruptive assertion. By and large, the kanwariyas have a de facto immunity — actions that would normally invite the attention of law enforcement agencies are ignored and even actively permitted. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. But the access to this public space, and the degree to which rights can be exercised, are differentiated. Who may occupy a public space and for what purpose is neither universal nor equal. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Supreme Court held that the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of protestors have to be balanced with the rights of commuters. Permission for a demonstration or public meeting should be granted keeping in view its effect on traffic, human safety, and public tranquillity. Similarly, in Himat Lal Shah (1973), the Court held that the right to a public street can be regulated so that all can enjoy that right. In the wake of protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Supreme Court found in 2020, that the right to dissent could not be at the cost of inconvenience to commuters and authorities must take action to prevent undue encroachments and obstructions in public spaces. In 2021, during the farmers' protests, the Supreme Court once again remarked that protests could not inconvenience the general public and lead to roads being blocked. The only time that the Kanwar Yatra has been made subject to legitimate restrictions was in 2021, when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the yatra held despite the rising cases of Covid-19. No doubt, all sects have a right to profess and practise religion, subject to 'public order, morality and health'. The right to protest is restricted by similar considerations. Should the State then not be equally concerned by the civic inconveniences caused by religious processions, as it is by the peaceful public gathering of dissenters? If freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of our Constitution, their equal application is its chief anchor. The popular saying 'your right to swing your wrist ends where my nose begins' must apply in equal measure to all those who lay claim to a public space. Katyayani Suhrud and Trisha Chandran are lawyers practising in the Supreme Court of India. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Tariffs as a tool to extort, and slight India's sovereignty
US President Donald Trump, in an executive order dated July 31, announced imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian imports, on grounds of national emergency and lack of reciprocity. Trump has also said that he would impose an undetermined 'penalty' on India for buying oil and weapons from Russia. This latest measure is further evidence of the complete derision with which the Trump administration deals with its partners and with international law. Insulting a partner's economy by calling it 'dead', as Trump has done with India, undermines the cardinal principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are fundamental to international relations. The American penalty threat to India also violates general international laws of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the ICJ. (HT Photo) It is worth noting that India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March 2025. Despite the ongoing negotiations, the Trump administration announced reciprocal tariffs on India in April, which were then put on hold, subject to the sides quickly agreeing to an interim trade deal. The two sides have not reached an agreement on an interim trade deal because, reportedly, India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy markets. This stance is understandable, as it aims to protect India's politically-sensitive farming sector. The US announcement of a 25% tariff is a blatant attempt to pressure India into agreeing to a trade deal. As per the executive order, this additional tariff will remain until the two sides agree to a trade deal. The US is trying to negotiate while holding a gun to India's head. These tariffs would hit Indian exports to the US, especially of labour-intensive sectors such as textiles. Additionally, the US imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian goods is a blatant violation of international law. It not only breaches the most favoured nation principle laid down in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also violates the US's bound tariff commitments — a promise not to impose tariffs that exceed the rates mutually agreed upon — under Article II of GATT. The current situation extends beyond merely imposing high tariff rates. Trump's assertion that India would incur a penalty for purchasing oil and weapons from Russia constitutes a frontal assault on India's sovereignty. It's unclear whether this penalty refers to additional tariffs or something different. Regardless, the threat of such a penalty violates several fundamental canons of international law. Let us examine this under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both India and the US are founding members. Under the WTO law, a member country is not allowed to adopt unilateral trade measures against another member country unless supported by the WTO agreement. A key provision in this regard is that a WTO member country can limit or even forbid trade with another member country on grounds of national security. This principle is codified in Article XXI of GATT, which, inter alia, allows a country to take any actions it deems necessary for protecting its essential security interests during times of war or other emergencies in international relations. This includes measures such as imposing a trade embargo. The WTO panels have interpreted this principle narrowly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents an emergency in international relations. This situation could potentially empower the US to sever its trade ties with Russia. However, the US cannot legally justify restricting trade with countries that engage in commerce with Russia. Imposing additional tariffs on India would be too disconnected from the security threats posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the US, making such an action implausible. The American penalty threat to India also violates the general international law of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the International Court of Justice in the US v Nicaragua case. From whom to buy oil and weapons is part of India's reserved domain, that is, part of India's sovereign economic and foreign policy. While the US may disapprove of India's policy choices and may seek to influence them through legal measures, it cannot impose unlawful actions — such as tariffs that are WTO-inconsistent — to coerce India into signing a trade deal or to punish it for lawfully trading with Russia. This, as international lawyer Marko Milanovic describes it, can be characterised as coercion-as-extortion, which violates customary international law. However, viewing the latest actions of Trump merely from the vantage point of international trade would mean missing the woods for the trees. The US, under Trump, appears determined to wage a war with international law and the liberal international order it assiduously built after World War II. The US has traditionally maintained a policy of exceptionalism regarding international law, viewing itself as 'distinct' and thus an 'exception' to the rules that apply to other countries. However, the Trump administration has escalated this attitude to a whole new level. American professor Mark Pollack has rightly described Trump as a 'hostile change agent' in international law who adopts unilateral measures that undermine the international rule of law and topple the law-based order. This is different from many past American presidents who might be characterised as 'traditional change agents' trying to persuade others to accept change based on reinterpretation of existing norms or even adoption of new ones. The real worry is that the current hostility to international law might get so entrenched that it would be difficult to reverse it even after Trump leaves office. Keeping this larger picture in mind, India should stand up against American bullying. While the US is undoubtedly a significant partner for India, New Delhi should send a clear message that it cannot be taken for granted. One effective way to convey this message would be to legally challenge the US's illegal tariffs at the WTO's dispute settlement body. A just and fair rule-based international order is the best antidote to Trumpian unilateralism. India, an essential member of the comity of nations, should take a lead in industriously defending the international rule of law. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
