In News:

In a landmark advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clarified that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) remains legally valid and binding, even after the Paris Agreement (2015) came into effect. This ruling has revived the Protocol’s legal relevance and has far-reaching implications for international climate law and global climate governance.

Background: The Kyoto Protocol

• Adopted: 1997; Entered into force: 2005 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
• Nature: First binding international treaty mandating emission reductions by industrialised nations (Annex-I countries).
• Principle: Based on Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC), recognising that developed nations bear greater responsibility due to their historical emissions.
• Commitment Periods:
  • First: 2008–2012
  • Second: 2012–2020
• Obligations:
  • Quantified emission reduction targets (from 1990 baseline).
  • Provision of finance and technology transfer to developing nations.
  • Market-based mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Why was Kyoto Considered Obsolete?

• US Non-Ratification: The largest historical emitter never joined the Protocol.
• Withdrawals: Countries like Canada and Japan later exited or refused binding targets.
• Rise of New Emitters: China overtook the US as the largest emitter by mid-2000s but, as a “developing country,” had no binding obligations.
• Shift to Paris Agreement (2015):
  • Kyoto: Top-down, binding targets for developed countries.
  • Paris: Bottom-up, voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for all states.
• With no third commitment period defined after 2020, Kyoto was widely seen as defunct though never formally repealed.

ICJ’s Key Rulings

• Kyoto Still in Force: The absence of a new commitment period does not terminate the Protocol; it remains part of applicable international law.
• Legal Accountability: Non-compliance with emission reduction targets can constitute an “internationally wrongful act.”
• Retroactive Review: Past obligations (e.g., unfulfilled first commitment period targets) remain open for assessment.
• Advisory but Influential: Though not legally binding, the ruling strengthens grounds for climate litigation and accountability mechanisms.

Significance of the Ruling

• Legal Continuity: Confirms coexistence of Kyoto and Paris, rather than substitution.
• Revival of CBDR–RC: Re-emphasises differentiated responsibilities of developed nations, which Paris had diluted.
• Climate Justice: Opens the door for renewed scrutiny of historical emitters and their unfulfilled obligations.
• Litigation Pathways: Strengthens civil society and state efforts to seek compensation or stronger climate actions through international and domestic courts.

Implications for Global Climate Governance

• Developed countries face renewed legal and moral pressure to honour past commitments and extend finance and technology support.
• Developing nations gain a stronger footing to demand accountability for historical emissions.
• The ruling highlights the layered nature of international climate treaties, with Kyoto, UNFCCC, and Paris coexisting rather than replacing each other.
• It may reshape climate negotiations by reviving unfinished obligations under Kyoto while reinforcing Paris as the ongoing framework.