Advocates for urgent climate action cheered the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion, which held that climate action is a legal obligation of nation-States. The opinion is a ‘planetary’ victory at a time when Western governments are increasingly adopting anti-climate stances. Though non-binding, the judgment carries significant legal and moral authority, with the potential to influence future treaty negotiations, domestic legislation, and policy regulations.

Yet, it is essential to understand whether this opinion is merely a moral win or if it can provide impetus toward a new era of climate justice and action. The answer lies in how the world responds to four key areas addressed by the ICJ: legal obligations, differentiated responsibilities, loss and damage, and the right to remedy.

Vanuatu, a small island-nation in the Pacific Ocean facing an existential threat from the climate crisis, led a coalition of 132 countries in calling on the United Nations General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. In the largest proceedings before the court, 97 States, including India, and 11 organisations made oral statements. The proceedings focused on two main questions: first, what obligations do States have to act on the climate crisis under international law? Second, what are the legal consequences if States fail to take the required climate action?

The court ruled that climate action is no longer optional. States have clear legal obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the........

© hindustantimes