New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) The International Court of Justice’s landmark advisory opinion that nations have binding legal obligations to address climate change offers legal reinforcement to India’s long-standing calls for equity, historical responsibility and climate justice while raising the bar for domestic action, experts said on Thursday.
The United Nations’ top court made it clear that countries must pursue their climate targets with the “highest possible ambition” and are expected to progressively enhance them over time.
Issued Wednesday night, the advisory opinion holds that states have binding legal obligations under international law to combat climate change, including protecting people from its harmful effects.
Experts said the ruling is significant for countries like India that have contributed little historically to the climate crisis but face disproportionate impacts.
“This is a landmark ruling. The ICJ has made it unambiguous: climate action is no longer just a political or ethical choice, but a legal obligation,” said Hisham Mundol, Chief Advisor, India at Environmental Defense Fund.
For countries like India, which is representing the Global South, with low historical and per capita emissions but high vulnerability, the ruling is both clarifying and empowering, he said.
Mundol said the opinion recognises differentiated responsibility and strengthens the legal ground for developing nations to press for more ambitious mitigation efforts by historical emitters and for greater financial and technological support.
It reinforces the need for equity in global climate governance and provides a stronger legal foundation for developing nations to demand deeper cuts from historical emitters and greater support, including financing, for green transition, adaptation, and loss and damage, he said.
He added that the ruling also offers a pathway for countries like India to frame future global negotiations and finance discussions in both legal and scientific terms.
“At the same time, it challenges countries like India to lead with credible, ambitious climate action that doesn’t compromise development priorities,” Mundol said.
Shailendra Yashwant, senior advisor with Climate Action Network South Asia, said India’s consistent focus on equity and climate justice at global platforms, including the ICJ hearings, finds recognition in the advisory opinion but also comes with sharper expectations.
“In my opinion, India has consistently emphasised equity, historical responsibility and the need for climate justice in global forums, including at the ICJ hearings. The ICJ ruling does not erase these principles but clarifies that all countries must act, though the weight of action may differ,” he said.
India’s arguments that those with historically negligible emissions should not shoulder equal burdens remain recognised, but cannot justify inaction or weak targets, Yashwant said.
“The ICJ ruling reiterates that such discretion is now constrained by the principles of ‘progression’ and ‘highest possible ambition’, reinforcing that every country’s targets are subject to global scrutiny and international legal expectations.” He said the opinion presents India with an opportunity to reassess its climate strategy, deepen domestic implementation and use its leadership to push for a fairer global climate finance architecture.
India was among more than 50 countries and institutions that presented oral and written submissions during the ICJ hearings in The Hague earlier this year. It argued that the responsibility to address climate change “should be seen in the light of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.
India said states “should not be placed under any additional obligations that are not already contained in the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)” and added that any such obligations would be contrary to the consensual nature of international climate law.
Harjeet Singh, the founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, said the ICJ’s advisory opinion is a groundbreaking legal seismic shift that fundamentally redefines the global climate fight.
It is an unequivocal demand for equitable action and unparalleled international cooperation, making it clear that the era of relying solely on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as a ceiling for ambition is over, he said.
“The ICJ has asserted that states’ obligations extend beyond the Paris Agreement, clarifying that customary international law demands they prevent significant harm to the climate system. This means large, historical polluters can no longer use their NDCs as a convenient excuse to evade deeper responsibility.” The court’s emphasis on full reparations directly links past and current carbon pollution to legal consequences, demanding action far beyond future projections, he said, adding they must now base their targets and actions on their cumulative historical emissions and current capacities, not merely on future-looking pledges.
“This ruling, while a triumph for global climate justice, carries significant implications for countries like India. As a major economy with growing energy demands and a substantial current carbon footprint, India will undoubtedly face intensified pressure to ramp up its ambition and accelerate its transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the climate activist said.
Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Senior Fellow at Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), said that if interpreted within the context of foundational principles of UNFCCC, CBDR and respective capabilities, the judgement implies that the developed world should accelerate its mitigation actions as well as provide means of support to the developing world.
“However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the judgement is twisted and taken out of context by the developed world countries to create more pressure on the developing world to accelerate mitigation action,” he added.
While the ICJ’s advisory opinion is non-binding, it carries strong moral and legal authority and could influence domestic courts, UN agencies and future international negotiations.
The case was initiated in 2023 following a resolution led by Vanuatu and adopted by the UN General Assembly. The court was asked to clarify the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change and the consequences of breaching them, particularly in relation to the rights of present and future generations.
The court concluded that states must take all necessary measures to prevent the adverse effects of climate change on human rights, including the rights to life, health, food and water.
Legal experts say the ruling could help reinterpret existing international law in light of the climate emergency, expand the grounds for litigation and inform the work of other international courts and tribunals. PTI GVS GVS NSD NSD NSD
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.