Editorial: ICJ strengthens voice of the South on climate crisis

With the world’s top court declaring that countries have binding legal obligations to protect the climate, climate justice is no longer just a moral demand— it is now a matter of international law

India’s stand on climate justice has been vindicated now. In a landmark development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s top court, delivered a unanimous opinion, declaring that countries have binding legal obligations to protect the climate, and failing to do so may constitute an “internationally wrongful act”. This means that climate justice is no longer just a moral claim but a matter of international law. Representing the voice of the Global South, India has been arguing for decades that the polluters — in this case, the rich nations — must pay and lend technological help to developing countries to fight the climate crisis. It is ironic that the poorer nations, which have done the least to cause climate change, are made to suffer the most from its consequences. One wonders how many broken promises the Global South must endure before the West takes real responsibility for tackling the climate crisis. The 2015 Paris Agreement mandates the international community to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Despite lofty promises, Western countries have failed to compensate for the damage they have caused to the environment. In 2009, rich nations agreed to send USD 100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, but failed to meet the target in full. However, they have been putting pressure on developing nations to increase the NDC (nationally determined contribution) goals or meet ‘Net Zero’ (bringing greenhouse gas emissions to zero level) targets early.

India’s arguments remained focused on the transfer of technology and climate finance from developed to developing regions. Its position on loss and damage due to climate change is that developed countries have a bigger contribution to environmental damage and resultant calamities that have taken place in developing countries, in particular the island-nations. The ICJ has now supplied a legal foundation to what many developing economies, including India, have long argued. Though advisory in nature, the world court’s opinion carries considerable legal weight and political legitimacy and reflects a major shift in the legal architecture of climate governance. It affirms that obligations to act on climate change arise not only from climate-specific treaties like the Paris Agreement, but also from human rights law. In other words, states cannot hide behind selective treaty interpretations to avoid doing their fair share. The court determined that the 1.5 degrees C temperature target is legally binding under the Paris Agreement and that all states, in particular the largest emitters, must take ambitious mitigation measures. The historic opinion came six years after a group of 27 students from the University of the South Pacific began campaigning on this issue, and more than two years after the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting the advisory opinion. The court concluded that states must act to prevent foreseeable climate harm or face international legal responsibility.

---