Latest news with #UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
What the ICJ ruling means for climate action and justice
Advocates for urgent climate action cheered the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) advisory opinion, which held that climate action is a legal obligation of nation-States. The opinion is a 'planetary' victory at a time when Western governments are increasingly adopting anti-climate stances. Though non-binding, the judgment carries significant legal and moral authority, with the potential to influence future treaty negotiations, domestic legislation, and policy regulations. The court ruled that climate action is no longer optional. States have clear legal obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and customary international law to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis (PTI) Yet, it is essential to understand whether this opinion is merely a moral win or if it can provide impetus toward a new era of climate justice and action. The answer lies in how the world responds to four key areas addressed by the ICJ: legal obligations, differentiated responsibilities, loss and damage, and the right to remedy. Vanuatu, a small island-nation in the Pacific Ocean facing an existential threat from the climate crisis, led a coalition of 132 countries in calling on the United Nations General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. In the largest proceedings before the court, 97 States, including India, and 11 organisations made oral statements. The proceedings focused on two main questions: first, what obligations do States have to act on the climate crisis under international law? Second, what are the legal consequences if States fail to take the required climate action? The court ruled that climate action is no longer optional. States have clear legal obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and customary international law to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Additionally, countries must work together in good faith to implement measures to address these issues. Yet, a significant shortcoming is that the court did not provide precise benchmarks for the types of climate actions countries must undertake. The imperative to act stems not only from the duty to protect the environment but also from core human rights treaties affirming the right to 'a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.' However, the court offered little clarification on how these human rights protections will be enforced. For instance, ICJ rulings that call on Israel to stop military conflict in Palestinian territory on human rights grounds have not been accepted by the Netanyahu government, and have not ended the conflict in Gaza. In a diplomatic win for India, the ICJ acknowledged the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). India has long championed CBDR in climate diplomacy. It has been an agenda-setter, building coalitions within the Global South to negotiate climate agreements that recognise the varying technological and financial capacities of countries. India has consistently insisted that developed countries bear a greater burden in reducing emissions, in proportion to their historical responsibilities. These arguments were put forth by New Delhi in its submissions during the ICJ proceedings. The court called on developed countries to support the Global South through climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building — particularly in adaptation efforts. However, it avoided any declaration on how the principle of CBDR should apply to growing emissions from emerging economies. The judgment stated that developing countries are expected to act, albeit based on their capabilities. It also took a firm stance on the continued use of fossil fuels, declaring that the production, consumption, and granting of exploration licenses and subsidies constitute 'international wrongdoing.' India currently derives more than two-thirds of its total primary energy from fossil fuels. In light of this judgment, New Delhi may find it difficult to justify its development-linked fossil fuel use, particularly in international groupings that include countries most vulnerable to the climate crisis, such as small island nations. The advisory opinion also addressed one of the thorniest issues in climate diplomacy: loss and damage. For years, countries in the Global South have demanded compensation for the irreversible impacts of the climate crisis, including rising sea levels, devastating floods, and prolonged droughts. While acknowledging that treaty-based mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund play a role, the court ruled that injured States have the right to 'restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.' This opens the door for States with low historical emissions — particularly those most vulnerable — to legally demand reparations from larger emitters if scientific links can be established between emissions and harm. While the ICJ's stance on reparations is progressive, it is unlikely to result in direct financial transfers. For example, in 1968, the ICJ asked the US to pay reparations to the Nicaraguan government for violating its sovereignty through armed interventions. The US refused to accept the court's jurisdiction, citing legal caveats that enabled it to avoid paying reparations. The challenge lies in the absence of a roadmap for adjudicating legal claims when climate-vulnerable countries pursue litigation without an international enforcement mechanism to support them. At best, the ruling provides additional leverage for Global South countries to negotiate increased financial support from the Global North during climate talks. In a world marked by failing multilateralism and a lack of political will, it remains unclear to what extent the ICJ's ruling will influence the individual climate actions of States toward a deep and rapid transition to a low-carbon economy. It is likely to remain a rhetorical device rather than an operational tool. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction — offering a clear legal framework for how States can hold one another accountable for the climate crisis. Perhaps the most impactful outcome will be the advisory opinion's influence in domestic lawsuits where citizens seek to hold their governments liable for climate inaction. Pooja Ramamurthi has a background in climate and energy diplomacy. Abhinand Siddarth has a background in international law. The views are personal.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
World court's advisory opinion boosts climate action
In light of the existential threat posed by climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, delivered a landmark advisory opinion on the obligations of states concerning climate change. Advisory opinions, while not technically binding, are regarded as authoritative interpretations of international law by the World Court. They can influence the behaviour of states by generating international pressure. A notable example is the United Kingdom's handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which followed the advisory opinion on the matter. States cannot ignore their duties The World Court unanimously ruled that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system and clarified the consequences for failing to meet these obligations. Recently, other international courts, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), have also recognised significant responsibilities for states in addressing climate change. This issue transcends politics; states cannot ignore their duties. This advisory opinion is noteworthy in many aspects. First and foremost, the court has interpreted all climate treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, in a seamless manner, along with the best available scientific consensus, to strengthen the operation of many of the treaty provisions. For example, the Paris Agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 'well below 2°C' and 'pursue efforts' to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, the court used current scientific consensus as well as subsequent conference of parties (COP) decisions to hold that 1.5°C is the relevant threshold that states must work towards. Similarly, the Paris Agreement requires parties to prepare their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline the climate actions they plan to take. However, the court rejected the argument that states had unfettered discretion in preparing their NDCs and that NDCs did not create any legally binding obligations on states. It held that, due to their duty of due diligence and cooperation, states must ensure that their NDCs reflect their 'highest possible' ambition and must proactively take measures that are reasonably capable of meeting those NDCs. The decision also has significant implications for the Global North-South divide and climate justice, with the court highlighting the importance of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). Accordingly, the standard for assessing countries' climate actions would depend on factors such as historical emissions, level of development, and current national circumstances. The court also explained the duties of cooperation and assistance, and clarified that developed countries have a legally binding obligation to provide financial resources and technology transfer to developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation. While the Paris Agreement does not specify a specific level of financial support, the court observed that this obligation must be interpreted in light of the overall temperature goal and subsequent agreements. Breach of this obligation can be assessed against a standard of good faith and due diligence. Self-contained regime Notably, the court rejected the argument of some countries, including India, that the climate treaties constituted a self-contained regime and that the principles and rules of general international law and environmental law were inapplicable. The court identified obligations to mitigate climate change, including the duty of due diligence, the duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system, and the duty to cooperate in protecting the climate, stemming from various environmental treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention, and uncodified customary international law. The court also noted the adverse effects of climate change on various human rights, particularly the rights of especially vulnerable peoples, which must be taken into account by countries when taking climate action. In practice, this means that withdrawal from climate treaties, as the United States has done, does not exempt a country from its climate-related obligations. It also means that, in working toward a green transition, countries must ensure that human rights are not violated and that a just transition is achieved. The court dismissed the argument that countries cannot be held individually responsible for violating these obligations, because proving causation and attribution is difficult. It pointed out that it is scientifically possible to determine each state's total contribution to global emissions, considering both historical and current emissions. This is leverage for the Global South It is noteworthy that the small island-states, which face an existential threat due to climate change, were the ones that pushed the UN General Assembly to request this advisory opinion. This is a significant legal victory for them and will strengthen their efforts to hold major emitters accountable and push for more ambitious action. This decision is likely to bolster the ongoing strategic litigation concerning climate change in various countries, where the climate actions taken by the countries have been challenged as insufficient and violative of human rights, including the Ridhima Pandey case pending before the Indian Supreme Court. Countries in the Global South, such as India, can leverage this decision to collectively pressure developed nations to better fulfil their commitments to climate finance and technology transfer, while resisting policies that disproportionately impact developing countries. Prabhash Ranjan is Professor and Vice Dean (Research), Jindal Global Law School. Rahul Mohanty is Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
ICJ ruling on climate crisis is a powerful boost for justice – but may not be enough
On July 23, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling on the climate crisis. As the highest judicial institution in the world, its word should carry weight, and climate justice movements have welcomed it. But will it be sufficient to transform the current situation in which the worst offenders – rich, industrialised states and the rich in poorer countries – continue to evade their responsibility? The ruling is based on a request made by the United Nations General Assembly, to provide an opinion on the obligations of states to address climate change under international law and the legal consequences for failing to deliver on those obligations. This was based on a resolution that 132 states co-sponsored in 2023. As many as 99 states made submissions to the International Court of Justice. The ruling, unanimously issued by its 15 judges as an advisory apinion to all countries, is long and complex. In a nutshell, it has: · Accepted the dire scenarios of the climate crisis as portrayed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noting that it is 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet'; Asserted that all states have an obligation to act to reduce the causes of climate change, including 'taking mitigation and adaptation measures, with due account given to the protection of human rights, the adoption of standards and legislation…' Stated that such obligations are not only under international treaties related directly to climate (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement), but also under other environment and human rights treaties, customary international law (such as the duty to prevent significant harm to the environment) and accepted principles (such as the responsibility to protect the rights of future generations). Some submissions made to the court, such as that of US, argued that state obligations under climate treaties are flexible and subject to its domestic priorities. While there is an accepted principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' in the climate treaties, the intent of this is to put less of a burden on poorer countries, not to enable rich ones, who have been historically responsible for the bulk of climate change emissions, to escape their responsibilities. The International Court of Justice is clear on this: 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions – including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' And further, that: 'Customary obligations are the same for all States and exist independently regardless of whether a State is a party to the climate change treaties.' Regulating 'private actors' The ruling also places on states the responsibility to regulate the activities of 'private actors' that are under its jurisdiction or control. This is important, given the impunity with which multinational corporations act across the world, getting away with horrendous crimes of ecocide and of killing or injuring people defending their territories. Also significant is the clear connection the court has drawn between a environment and human rights (previously stated in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on July 28, 2022). The International Court of Justice says: 'the adverse effects of climate change … impact on the health and livelihoods of individuals through events such as sea level rise, drought, desertification and natural disasters, may significantly impair the enjoyment of … the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, which encompasses access to food, water and housing, the right to privacy, family and home, and the rights of women, children and indigenous peoples … The Court concludes that, under international law, the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The court also points to state culpability if it fails to take action: 'A State that does not exercise due diligence in the performance of its primary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment, including to the climate system, commits an internationally wrongful act entailing its responsibility.' It is then subject to various legal consequences, notably the obligation to cease harmful actions, provide 'full reparation' that includes restitution measures (such as helping to restore damaged ecosystems) or compensation (where such restitution is not possible) and others. There are aspects on which the ruling could have been stronger or clear. The principle of equity, for instance, could have been deepened with reference to how, for instance, major polluters need to take urgent action vis-à-vis small island states (whose youth were the first to initiate action that led to the ICJ taking up climate change), or other badly affected communities. This has been noted in a separate opinion of a couple of the judges, appended to the main ruling. The principle of the rights of nature and species other than humans, could have been invoked – there are only a couple of passing references to the threats to 'all life' and some species. It could also have more clearly stated that climate action itself should not endanger human and environmental rights or the principle of equity, as one sees in the global push for minerals and materials for the so-called 'energy transition'. Jurisdictional challenges The greatest concern, however, is in aspects not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Both nation-states and private corporations, especially the most powerful amongst them, are today already flouting global treaties and norms with impunity. The hard-fought gains of the latter part of the twentieth century, both in national and international policy-making, spurred by massive people's mobilisation, are being openly thrown out or ignored by presidents, prime ministers and heads of corporations. In such a situation, what potential does this ruling have to turn things around? Very little, unless, like any legal or policy tool, it is used by people. Not only to push governments and corporations in their own countries, but as moral backing for groun- level actions of boycott, resistance, blockages, consumer action and more. Climate justice mobilisation by or with farmers, fishers, Indigenous peoples, workers, youth, women, and others who have been thus far marginalised in decision-making, is gaining ground across the world. This includes both resistance and protest, as also constructive alternatives to meet human needs and aspirations while protecting nature and reducing inequities. The ruling could provide important an important boost to them to confront the capitalist and statist minority that is responsible for planetary ruin, not only between but also within countries. As the International Court of Justice itself notes, beyond the formal legal avenues of action, 'a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom – at the individual, social and political levels – to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.'
Hindustan Times
31-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Bonn to Belém: A turning point in global climate diplomacy
When most people think of international climate summits, they picture the high stakes drama of the annual COP gatherings presidents shaking hands, midnight negotiations, and last-minute breakthroughs. But far from the headlines, in the quiet German city of Bonn, another kind of diplomacy was quietly but powerfully unfolding. Climate crisis (Shutterstock) From June 16-26, 2025, negotiators, activists, scientists and observers gathered for SB 62 the 62nd sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Bodies (SBSTA and SBI). Being held amid challenging geopolitical circumstances, SB 62 was viewed as a pivotal opportunity to restore trust, especially on adaptation identified as a top priority. While it lacked the glitz of COP 29 in Baku or the anticipation surrounding COP 30 in Belém, SB 62 served as a bridge for technical dialogue to shape political ambition. Adaptation: The long elusive Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) finally started to take shape. For years, adaptation was the neglected sibling of mitigation hard to define, harder to quantify. But SB 62 began to change that. From an astonishing 9,000 proposed indicators, experts managed to narrow the list to 490, with hopes of finalising 100 key indicators by COP 30. These metrics spanned critical areas: Water security, public health, resilient infrastructure and crucially with the enabling conditions such as finance, technology, and capacity building. Developing countries, especially from the Global South, made a strong push for Means of Implementation (MoI) indicators to ensure that adaptation isn't just measured by impacts, but also by access to funds, to knowledge and to systems that leave no one behind. The result was a hard-earned compromise, but one that finally acknowledges that adaptation is not charity but its climate justice. Meanwhile, the Adaptation Fund came under the microscope, with growing support to align it solely with the Paris Agreement. While decisions were deferred to COP 30, the direction of travel was clear that a reform is coming and with it, a call for predictability and access. Climate finance: Despite its technical label, SB 62 wasn't short on drama especially when it came to climate finance. The much-discussed Baku-to-Belém roadmap, which envisions mobilising $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, was at the centre stage. Yet the optimism was quickly tempered by concerns over the growing reliance on private finance, vague definitions of climate-aligned investments, and the chronic absence of grant based public funding especially for adaptation and loss and damage. Finance disagreements were so intense, they delayed the opening of SB 62. For many developing countries, the message was blunt: without clear obligations and accountability, the climate finance promise risks becoming just another broken one. Amidst the gridlock, India's draft Climate Finance Taxonomy emerged as a quiet breakthrough. Designed to curb greenwashing and guide both public and private investments toward genuine climate solutions, it's a tool many are now watching closely. Transparency: If climate action is to be credible, it must be measurable. SB 62 saw a critical review of the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) under the Paris Agreement. New reporting templates and digital platforms were launched to simplify submissions and ensure consistency. For many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), however, the challenge is still about resources and capacity. To address this, SB 62 emphasised capacity-building and regional peer exchanges to support reporting. ETF isn't just about numbers, it's the backbone of the Global Stocktake, and a key driver of ambition. As countries prepare their NDCs 3.0, transparent reporting will determine whether the world believes the promises made. Inclusion in action: One of SB 62nd more hopeful notes came from the margins where energy often turns into action. Negotiations on a new Gender Action Plan (GAP) were launched, grounded in a collaborative workshop that brought together governments, youth leaders, and civil society. Though warmly welcomed, some questioned Brazil's omission of gender equity from its COP 30 agenda raising concerns about long-term political will. Meanwhile, youth presence was electric. Through initiatives like the Bonn Climate Camp and the Bed Exchange Programme, young activists turned Bonn into a hub of climate creativity. Their demand was clear: We don't want token seats, we want real influence. Bonn dialogues: Beyond the negotiation halls, the Bonn Dialogues captured the spirit of multilevel climate action. From city mayors to tribal leaders, startups to slum communities, the dialogues illustrated one truth: Top-down policymaking can't solve everything. Climate action must be co-created, not dictated. The sessions reflected a shift from pledges to implementation, from centralised decision-making to distributed leadership. Beyond the negotiation halls, the Bonn Dialogues captured the spirit of multilevel climate action. From city mayors to tribal leaders, startups to slum communities, the dialogues illustrated one truth: Top-down policymaking can't solve everything. Climate action must be co-created, not dictated. The sessions reflected a shift from pledges to implementation, from centralised decision-making to distributed leadership. Process reform: As the days ticked by, many began reflecting on the UNFCCC process itself. With over 50 agenda items and dozens of overlapping events, the machinery showed signs of strain. The proposals ranged from capping delegation sizes to sunsetting outdated negotiation tracks. Some floated the radical idea of majority-based decision making a sharp departure from the consensus model that, while inclusive, often leads to paralysis. In response, Brazil unveiled its Action Agenda for COP 30 a 30-point plan to streamline talks and focus on delivery. It was bold, but also symbolic. As observers noted, 'Efficiency is needed but not at the cost of inclusion.' The road to Belém: SB 62 didn't make headlines, but it quietly clarified the stakes. It was a reminder that the hardest work often happens away from the cameras, and that the path to climate justice is paved with both policy and persistence. The road to COP 30 in Belém is now shaped by urgent questions about finance, accountability, and equity. Whether it's finalising adaptation metrics or reforming climate finance, the world expects more than debate, it demands delivery. In his closing address, Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC said, 'We need to go further, faster, and fairer.' This article is authored by Hareesh Chandra Panchagnula, manager, climate change and sustainability practice, IPE Global.
Sydney Morning Herald
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
What's in a number? New carbon target sparks new climate warfare
Our free Environment newsletter is sent every second Wednesday. Below is an excerpt. Sign up to get the whole newsletter delivered to your inbox. Casual observers of federal parliament might this week have been startled by a sudden resumption of conflict over climate, but the timing was no accident. Australia, like the rest of the world, is due to set its 2035 carbon-emission reduction target under the Paris Agreement. As a result, Canberra is crawling with those who have an interest in influencing that target (or Nationally Determined Contribution, more on which shortly). Setting the scene for many turning their attention to parliament as it resumed for the Albanese government's second term, were Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, who introduced a private members' bill to have Australia abandon entirely the effort to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. Also in Canberra this week was Simon Stiell, the UN's chief climate diplomat or, more properly, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been travelling the world urging nations to submit ambitious targets that will keep Paris Agreement goals within reach. Far too careful a diplomat to recommend an Australian target, he has been making the case that, on economic and security grounds, Australia should be ambitious. 'Bog standard is beneath you … Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security,' he said in a speech in Sydney before travelling to Canberra. 'Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time.' So, what's a Nationally Determined Contribution? When world governments signed the Paris Accord almost a decade ago they agreed that to halt climate change before catastrophic tipping points kicked in, warming needed to be arrested below 2 degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.
