Context
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion stating that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and address climate change.
- Though non-binding, it could shape international climate litigation and increase pressure on states.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
Background
- Request came from the UN General Assembly (2023), led by Vanuatu.
- Part of broader efforts to bring climate justice into international law.
- ICJ was asked to clarify obligations of states regarding GHG emissions and responsibilities for harm caused.
ICJ’s Observations
- Climate action is not optional or a matter of policy choice; it is a legal obligation.
- Countries must:
- Prevent harm to other states (under no-harm principle).
- Act in line with human rights obligations.
- Ensure adequate mitigation/adaptation efforts.
- Failure to act may invoke international legal consequences.
Ruling’s Relevance
- Could be used to support future climate lawsuits.
- Likely to influence domestic court decisions, especially in countries with strong public interest litigation (PIL) cultures like India.
Implications
| Area | Impact |
| Climate Litigation | Could empower lawsuits against states or corporations for inaction. |
| Global South | Helps press for climate reparations, technology transfer, and climate finance. |
| Treaty Enforcement | Though ICJ cannot enforce treaties, its opinion adds moral-legal weight to commitments like the Paris Agreement. |
| Equity Principle | Reinforces common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR-RC). |
