World Court’s Advisory On Climate Change And Its Implications For India

The advisory opinion, to summarize, establishes direct obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, to adopt measures with two primary aims amongst others. Firstly, to reduce their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and reflect a progression in their actions reported through the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). And secondly to take measures to ensure that the temperature goal under the Paris Agreement of keeping the global temperature rise limited to 1.5 degree celsius (Article ). When taking measures, the State has a duty to cooperate and act with due diligence. (pages 130-131).

Expanding on the issue of due diligence, and what could qualify as “failure of a State to take appropriate action” to reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate systems, include production and consumption of fossil fuels, licensing fossil fuel projects and granting subsidies to fossil fuel projects amongst others (para 427). These obligations should also be read with existing customary law obligations, which requires States to act with due diligence owing to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), duty to prevent significant harm to climate systems, environment and transboundary environments and obligations to protect human rights under international law (pages 130-131). Additionally, the ICJ also recognized that GHG emissions may be characterised as pollution, and have implications for duty to prevent and protect (marine) environment from pollution (paras. 336-368), that is deleterious and sometimes irreparable.

This decision is a landmark advisory as it will have implications for the global developmental model- which has largely been fuelled by fossil fuels for centuries and protection of human rights. If it is applied in a positive light, it could help nations re-imagine how they envision development for current and future generations, and to reconcile this re-imagination with economic models.

This piece, however, looks into what could be the implications of this for India. In order to understand its implications for India, we need to understand India’s internal and external position on the issue of climate change. India does not have a legislation on climate change, and operates through its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and its commitments under the NDCs. When India submitted its first NDC under the Paris Agreement in 2015, it was characterised as “ambitious” and “significant contribution towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement”. The updated NDCalso ambitious, moved to a timeline to achieve net zero by 2070. India is one of those countries which “will exceed its main NDC targets (emission intensity and renewable generation capacity targets) before 2030”.

India has also been a proponent of CBDR-RC, highlighting that developing countries like India, are in need of the liberty to explore their own developmental models, including carbon-intensive (fossil-fuel intensive) models, because the developed countries could also pursue similar developmental models in the past. Additionally, India has maintained that under the principle of CBRD-RC developed states and historically high emitters should do more to combat climate change. The ICJ opinion also recognizes that the obligations of States may differ “depending on parties’ economic situations, their historic contribution to anthropogenic GHG emissions and their capabilities to adapt to and mitigate the adverse effects on climate change” (para 179).

From a domestic and international environmental law perspective, India has also maintained that GHG emissions do not qualify as pollutants under its Laws, and in its legal interpretation of international pollution laws and standards. For example, in its submissions before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, India maintained that GHG emissions should not be categorised as pollutants.

Finally, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in MK Ranjithsingh’s case that people have a fundamental right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change, under Article 21 of the Constitution, read with right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. This particular decision came as a support to solar energy projects and their transmission lines in India, which are the need of the hour to replace fossil-fuel development with renewable energy sources, with a priority.

The immediate implications of the ICJ decision in the position of India, should be seen in its position on GHG as pollutants, licenses of fossil-fuel and renewable energy projects and its overall efforts to a systemic integration of laws governing climate change, both at the national and international level. In Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (Appeal) order of 2025the Supreme Court has acknowledged an integration of existing statues to incorporate “climate-centric enforceable mandates”. The advisory by the ICJ can be foundational to a systemic integration of existing statutes in India from a climate centric perspective. This integration can be seen from several lenses or all at once, including human rights and climate change; pollution, environmental protection and climate change; and impact assessments and climate change.

From a long-term perspective, it is important to note that the current laws and policies which still support a carbon-intensive developmental model in India, can be revisited, if India intends to adopt the recommendations of AO positively. India as a country aims to become a developed country by 2047, which is also considered as a synonym to becoming rich. The ICJ reiterates the “need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment” (para 147). In order to ensure this reconciliation, India firstly needs to end licensing and subsidizing fossil-fuel projects in India. Secondly, India needs to ensure impact assessment becomes part and parcel of developmental project implementation in India. These projects should include renewable energy projects and the impact assessment should include impact assessment for the environment, climate systems and human rights of those vulnerable.

Additionally, in the long-term India’s NDCs, which are already ambitious, can see enhanced progressive emissions reductions measures, allowing for a concerted collective action for the common concern of mankind- climate change. One other important implication for India, and for State generally arise out of the assertion by the Court that the duty to cooperate in the context of climate change includes a duty to agree to “a methodology for determining contributions of individual States, including with respect to the fulfilment of any collective temperature goal” (para 305). The issue of a commonly agreed methodology to determine GHG emissions budget or quota for each State according to its “fair share”, has been very controversial. After the Switzerland government argued that there is lack of methodology to agree to a fair share and therefore determine fair share of a country, the European Court of Human Rights made it a human rights obligation of Switzerland to quantify its fair share. While the developed countries are failing to quantify their fair share, perhaps India can take a lead on this issue. However, it might come with several challenges in the current global geo-political scenarios.

Finally, one of the issues that can have several ripple effects, is the overall outlook of the Court on CBDR-RC principle. The ICJ states that “the status of a State as developed or developing is not Static. It depends on an assessment of the current circumstances of the State concerned.” (para 226). This assertion in relation to CBDR-RC can have several future implications, leading to changes in the obligations of the State, given the fact that India aims to become a developed nation by 2047. The separate opinion of Judge Xue on CBDR-RC, however, presents a detailed analysis of assuming that the distinction between developed and developing country itself is a criterion for the responsibility of States (para 3). She highlights that historical emissions, historical development, per capita emissions of States, and the vulnerability of groups of States and peoples must be addressed when addressing the issue of CBDR-RC. Based on this overall view of the Court, India may take a position and further its understanding, position and rationale on CBDR-RC, while it aims to become a developed country with lowest per capita emissions in the world, and several highly climate vulnerable groups within its territory.

More generally, internationally, all States including India have a duty not to cause a significant environmental harm by engaging in fossil-fuel intensive activities, and committing to reducing its emissions by phasing out fossil fuels, in the light of its national circumstances. India must continue on its path to a renewable energy dependent development, and work towards its commitment to keeping the global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees celsius.

The author is a Phd Candidate at Dublin City University, Ireland. Views are personal.