GS3 – Environment
Context
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a landmark advisory opinion defining the legal responsibilities of states in addressing climate change, moving global climate action into the realm of international law.
Background of the Case
- Origin: Initiated by South Pacific law students in 2019, the campaign called for legal accountability for climate inaction.
- Vanuatu’s Role: Vanuatu spearheaded diplomatic efforts to highlight climate impacts on vulnerable island nations as violations of international law.
- UNGA Involvement: The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) referred the matter to the ICJ, seeking clarification on states’ legal obligations related to climate mitigation and liability for non-compliance.
Takeaways from the ICJ Advisory Opinion
- Legal Accountability:
- States have a binding legal duty to prevent and reduce serious climate-related harm.
- Failure to act constitutes an internationally wrongful act.
- Non-Discretionary Obligation:
- Climate action is no longer optional or a matter of policy discretion—legal compliance is expected.
- Corporate Regulation:
- States must monitor and control emissions from private entities within their jurisdiction.
- Loss and Damage:
- The Court acknowledged that affected states may seek reparations for climate-related harm.
- Global Scope:
- Obligations apply universally and are erga omnes—owed to the international community as a whole.
About ICJ Advisory Opinions
- Nature and Authority:
- Advisory opinions interpret international law but are non-binding in nature.
- However, they hold high persuasive value and moral authority in global governance.
- Who Can Request:
- Only the UNGA and UNSC have direct authority to request opinions under Article 96 of the UN Charter.
- Other UN bodies must obtain approval from the General Assembly.
- Procedural Aspects:
- The ICJ can issue opinions without consent from the states involved.
- It may decline requests that are vague or outside the legal scope of the referring body.
Implications for India
- Shift in Climate Governance:
- The advisory opinion strengthens global expectations of legal compliance, replacing earlier voluntary commitments.
- Future Legal Risks:
- India may face international legal scrutiny over lapses in domestic climate targets.
- Enforceable NDCs:
- India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) now carry greater weight and may be treated as legally enforceable standards.
- Policy Reinforcement:
- Steps such as promoting renewables and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies receive legal legitimacy.
- Transboundary Impact:
- Neighbouring countries could raise cross-border climate damage claims under emerging international norms.