In News:

In a historic advisory opinion delivered on 23rd July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental human right. The opinion was issued at the request of the UN General Assembly (2023) following lobbying by Vanuatu and supported by over 130 countries, mainly small island developing states (SIDS) vulnerable to climate change.

Key Legal Questions Addressed:

1. What are states’ obligations under international law to mitigate climate change?
2. What are the legal consequences of failing to act on climate commitments?

Major Highlights of the ICJ Advisory Opinion:

1. Environment as a Human Right

• The Court affirmed that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is inherent to the enjoyment of other human rights.
• Based on customary international law, UNGA Resolution 76/300 (2022), and international human rights treaties.

2. Binding Legal Duties

• States are bound under UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement to:
  • Implement mitigation and adaptation policies.
  • Submit and update Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
  • Facilitate technology transfer and climate finance.

3. Due Diligence and Liability

• States must prevent significant transboundary environmental harm and regulate both public and private actors (e.g., fossil fuel companies).
• Failure to act amounts to an internationally wrongful act, triggering:
  • Cessation,
  • Guarantees of non-repetition,
  • Compensation or restitution.

4. Historical Emissions & Responsibility

• The ICJ accepted that cumulative emissions can be legally attributed to specific states.
• Supports legal claims for reparations and accountability based on historic contributions to climate change.

5. Climate Obligations as Erga Omnes

• These duties are owed to the entire international community.
• Any state can seek enforcement, regardless of direct injury.

6. Scientific Attribution Accepted

• Climate science was admitted as legal evidence.
• Allows courts to establish causal links between emissions and environmental harm.

Geopolitical & Legal Implications:

• Empowers SIDS and developing nations in climate negotiations.
• Opens doors to domestic and international litigation based on environmental rights.
• Highlights inadequacy of current global agreements in ensuring timely climate action.
• Major emitters like USA and Russia have resisted legally binding obligations through courts.

Relevance for India:

• Reinforces Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 48A (Protection of Environment) of the Indian Constitution.
• Can influence Indian courts and tribunals (e.g., NGT, Supreme Court) in:
  • Air and water pollution cases,
  • Waste management,
  • Climate adaptation litigation.

This ruling marks a critical shift in international environmental law, signaling greater legal accountability for climate action and strengthening the legal foundation for future climate justice claims.