ICJ's climate action ruling can send a strong message

After filing a strong objection to the underwhelming climate finance agreement at the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, India again slammed developed countries for their lacklustre commitment to climate action at the Hague.

- Pooja Vijay Ramamurthi

After filing a strong objection to the underwhelming climate finance agreement at the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, India again slammed developed countries for their lacklustre commitment to climate action at the Hague. Over a span of 10 days, from December 2 to 13, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard over 100 countries including India. The ruling by the court's 15 judges, expected early this year, will be the first such and will explicitly provide clarity on two critical issues.

The first issue is what responsibilities governments hold towards protecting the planet and humanity from the impacts of the climate crisis under international law. The second issue deals with the legal consequences that countries could face if they do not take climate action required for the well-being of present and future generations.

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.