ICJ’s climate action ruling can send a strong message

Typically, ICJ only deals with legal issues brought to them by country governments. One exception is a request for an advisory opinion that can be brought forward by the UN. An advisory opinion is in essence an international legal guiding framework. For instance, in 1996, the court was asked for an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons during armed conflict and threats. The resolution to approach ICJ on climate issues was spearheaded in 2023, by Vanuatu, at the United Nations General Assembly. Countries surrounded by large oceans, such as Vanuatu, face an existential threat from the climate crisis, through sea level rise as well as increasing extreme weather events such as hurricanes, cyclones and flooding.

Climate activists are hoping that the ICJ ruling will provide impetus for climate action, in a world where support for a green future seems to be declining. With the rise of political leaders with anti-climate and pro-fossil fuel stances in the West — Donald Trump is a prime example — global climate cooperation appears to be in a shambles. This was reflected at COP29 talks, where none of the leaders of the world’s largest carbon emitters were present, including the United States (US), China, Germany, and even India. COP29 was deemed a failure with a diluted climate finance deal.

Realistically, it is unclear how effective the ICJ judgment will really be in hastening climate action. It will be non-binding, without posing legal obligations on countries. Recent ICJ rulings, such as calling for Israel to stop military conflict in Palestinian territory, did not perturb the Benjamin Netanyahu government that continues its offensive on Gaza. Similarly, countries such as the US have also disregarded the ICJ ruling on Israel completely.

The advisory opinion lays a moral foundation for countries to be held legally accountable towards taking climate action. Perhaps the most significant effect of the ruling would be opening the door for citizens to take a legal route in their own countries and pressure their governments to take prompt and effective climate action. Agreements such as the Montreal Protocol are legally binding. Ratified by countries across the world, this protocol states that non-compliance could lead to measures such as suspension of technology transfer, financial transfer and consumption goods. On the other hand, countries such as Russia argue that the Paris Agreement and all other treaties to reduce carbon emissions are based on voluntary commitments. If countries do not meet their climate goals, no international body can do anything to ensure compliance.

Since Rio in 1992, India has always been at the centre of climate negotiations, calling for increased accountability from richer nations. Indian officials have often cited the historic responsibility of developed countries, on which differentiated climate actions between the Global South and North are premised. India continued to argue this point at ICJ, citing the disappointing results from COP29 while advocating for a climate equity perspective. At the same time, the country cautioned that the ICJ should not put into place any new rules or regulations in addition to the Paris Agreement that could hinder the progress of developing nations.

Global institutions such as ICJ work well under a rules-based global order. These institutions, created by western countries, are tools for diplomacy to de-escalate tensions between nation-States. It is important for countries, particularly those most vulnerable to the climate crisis, to constantly use different international forums to express their climate needs. However, in today’s multi-polar, fragmented world order where multilateralism is slowly eroding, it is unclear whether the ruling may do more than send a strong moral message. It is unclear who will heed this message.

Pooja Vijay Ramamurthi is associate fellow, Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP).The views expressed are personal

Get Current Updates on…

See more