What did the ICJ say on climate obligations?

Context

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion on the obligations of states to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the legal consequences of failing to do so. The opinion arrives at a time when multilateral climate action faces significant challenges, especially with reduced commitments from some developed nations.

Relevance : GS 3(Climate Change , Environment and Ecology )

Key Highlights of the ICJ Opinion

1. Reaffirmation of the Climate Regime’s Integrity

• The ICJ emphasised the continuity and cohesiveness of the entire international climate framework:
  • UNFCCC (1992)
  • Kyoto Protocol (1997)
  • Paris Agreement (2015)
• This contrasts sharply with the view from some developed countries that the Paris Agreement is now the sole binding framework, making earlier instruments obsolete.

2. A Boost for the Global South

• The Court reaffirmed that developed countries (as listed in Annex I and II of the UNFCCC) have additional obligations, including:
  • Climate finance
  • Technology transfer
  • Capacity building
• Reasserted the relevance of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC) as the core guiding principle.
  • Notably, it extended the applicability of CBDR–RC beyond climate treaties to potentially wider environmental law, such as biodiversity governance.

3. Nuanced View on Developmental Status

• Recognised the evolving nature of “developed” and “developing” country categories, citing the Paris Agreement’s addition of “in the light of national circumstances” to CBDR–RC.
• This introduces flexibility but may blur lines in future interpretations and negotiations.

Contentious Interpretation of the Paris Temperature Target

1. Paris Agreement Language (Article 2.1(a)):

• Original Goal: Keep global temperature rise “well below 2°C”, while “pursuing efforts” for 1.5°C.
• ICJ’s View: Treats the 1.5°C target as the de facto obligation, based on recent UNFCCC COP decisions.

2. Issues Raised:

• The Court’s interpretation implies that implementation decisions can amend treaty obligations, a contentious legal stance.
• Ignores the reality that the 1.5°C threshold may be exceeded imminently, and offers no legal roadmap for that eventuality.
• Uncritical reliance on IPCC’s AR6 projections for emission cuts, which themselves do not account for equity or CBDR–RC, as acknowledged even in recent UNFCCC Bonn negotiations.

Enforcement of Climate Obligations: Limited Advances

• While extensively reviewing obligations of conduct vs. obligations of result, the Court remains within existing international law paradigms:
  • Obligations of conduct (e.g., mitigation efforts) are recognised, but are not enforceable as guarantees of outcome.
  • Stronger enforcement is limited to procedural compliance, such as submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
• The opinion implies that any enforcement is case-specific and dependent on judicial forums with relevant jurisdiction.

Gaps in the Opinion: A Global South Perspective

1. Developmental Constraints Ignored

• The opinion largely neglects the developmentalchallenges of the global South:
  • Lack of carbon space threatens energy access and poverty eradication.
  • Low-carbon transitions remain financially and technologically inaccessible for many developing countries.

2. Limited Recognition of Systemic Inequities

• Equity and CBDR–RC are acknowledged only as interpretive principles, not as sources of new obligations.
• Judge Xue Hanqin, in a separate opinion, highlights this omission, noting that a supportive international economic order is essential for sustainable development and climate justice.

Potential for Litigation, but Limited Global Impact

• The opinion may serve as a catalyst for litigation at the domestic or regional level, especially by climate-vulnerable countries.
  • It opens pathways for claims of reparation or compensation, contingent on establishing:
    • Attribution
    • Wrongfulness
    • Causation
• However, its effect on international negotiations is expected to be modest.
  • Existing fault lines between North and South remain unaddressed.
  • Several judges’ separate opinions reflect concern that this was a missed opportunity for bold jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The ICJ advisory opinion reaffirms important principles such as CBDR–RC and the continued obligations of developed countries, offering some support to the global South. However, it falls short in terms of:

• Addressing developmental asymmetries
• Clarifying the legal consequences of exceeding climate thresholds
• Proposing a robust enforcement framework

Its potential lies more in its symbolic value and litigation support, rather than in reshaping global climate governance. For policymakers and negotiators from the global South, the opinion is both an affirmation and a cautionary signal, underscoring the need to persist with demands for equity, climate finance, and technological justice.