The milestone ICJ opinion on climate obligations is not just a verdict from afar, but a compass

Indian Express

29-07-2025

For once, a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague is making waves in Hyderabad. In a rare instance of policy resonance, the advisory opinion on climate change delivered by the 15-judge panel of the ICJ on July 23 has sparked conversation far beyond decision-makers in India. The ICJ's unanimous declaration of climate change as an existential threat is being discussed not only in think tanks in Delhi and boardrooms in Mumbai, but also among environmentally conscious students in Patancheru, Telangana, where I teach public policy.
The case was initiated by Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation with a population of just 3,00,000. In March 2023, it led a coalition of small island states to secure consensual approval from the United Nations General Assembly to ask the ICJ two questions: What are states legally required to do to address climate change, and what are the consequences if they do not fulfil these duties?
Over 130 countries joined as co-sponsors. India did not join, but it did not oppose it either. This cautious posture reflects India's complex position in global climate diplomacy.
India's hesitation did not stem from disinterest. Rather, it reflected clear-eyed realism. As a developing nation still working to ensure universal access to electricity, healthcare, and employment, India undertakes a difficult balancing act. Unlike industrialised countries, India has not benefited from centuries of fossil fuel-powered growth. Although its total emissions are rising, per capita emissions remain among the lowest globally. Many households still rely on biomass for cooking and face irregular power supply.
Despite these constraints, India has taken ambitious climate actions. By 2030, it aims for half its electricity to come from renewables. Emissions intensity has declined, afforestation has expanded, and electric buses now run in several Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. India leads the International Solar Alliance and the Mission LiFE campaign promoting sustainable consumption. During its G20 presidency, it ensured that climate finance remained in the global spotlight.
These are not peripheral gestures. They are structural shifts. By any fair measure, India has done more with less. By contrast, Canada emits seven times more per capita and continues to expand its oil sands production. Australia, a major coal exporter, sets modest domestic targets while profiting from global emissions. Considering historical responsibility, economic capacity, and present-day ambition, India's efforts stand out.
Yet, the sweeping ICJ opinion, though not legally binding, will have consequences for India. It draws not only on climate treaties but also on the United Nations Charter, customary international law, the law of the sea, and human rights law. The Court affirms that states have obligations to prevent environmental harm, reduce emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and cooperate internationally. These duties are no longer moral appeals. They carry legal weight.
The Court also ruled that climate change violates rights to life, health, and housing. States must act based on the best available science, adopt ambitious national plans, and may be legally compelled to strengthen them. Failure to act could invite claims for climate damage. Subsidies for polluting fuels are now within legal scrutiny. The opinion does not just outline obligations, it opens the door to legal consequences.
For communities that have long suffered without recourse, this is a potential game changer. It affirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. India has long argued that those who contributed most to climate change must do more to address it. The ICJ has now given that argument legal grounding. It will bolster developing countries in global negotiations.
Yet, the new legal terrain raises at least three public policy challenges for India.
First is legal preparedness. Indian courts already interpret the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life. The ICJ ruling may spur a wave of litigation demanding stronger climate action or even compensation. The Indian state could also face lawsuits from within or from affected neighbouring island states. Anticipating such claims will be vital for legal and policy stability. Otherwise, a torrent of litigation could emerge without clear legal standards.
Second is enforcement. India's environmental laws are strong on paper but patchy in practice. Pollution control agencies remain underfunded and compliance varies widely across different states and sectors. The ICJ has reinforced the importance of due diligence. Strengthening regulatory capacity must now become a national priority.
Third is the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. These remain crucial for economically vulnerable households, especially for cooking gas and kerosene. But they also delay the shift to cleaner alternatives. The ICJ opinion, including the separate declaration appended by Judge Dalveer Bhandari of India, makes clear that subsidies have legal as well as fiscal implications. India must rethink how it provides support to the poor without locking them into polluting fuels. That will demand both financial resources and policy innovation.
The diplomatic challenge lies in aligning climate ambition with fairness. India must continue taking climate action while defending the context of its development needs. Climate justice must not become a new form of injustice.
The milestone ICJ opinion is not just a verdict from afar, but a compass. It signals the end of voluntary climate ambition and invites all countries to chart a harder, but fairer course. For India, the challenge now is to align duty with dignity and ambition with justice.
The writer is former permanent representative of India to the United Nations, and dean, Kautilya School of Public Policy, Hyderabad