Arguing that the primary responsibility of developing countries for causing climate change is an “indisputable” scientific fact, India on Friday asked the International Court of Justice not to create any new obligations for countries on climate change contained in existing international laws. In this issue.
India’s submission comes as the UN’s judicial arm ICJ hears the case seeking its advisory opinion on countries’ obligations on climate change and the legal consequences of these obligations. The United Nations General Assembly asked for opinions through a resolution passed last year.
India said the court should take into account the “fundamental principles” of the existing international legal framework and the “delicate balance” struck there.
“India requests the court to provide clarification and guidance on the earlier questions. In doing so, we ask the Court to take due account of the complexity of the climate change issue, historical responsibility and national circumstances… We also ask the Court to keep in mind that the Court should avoid creating any new or additional obligations beyond those. Climate change already exists,” said Luther Rangrezi, Joint Secretary, Department of Legal and Treaties, Ministry of External Affairs, in his submission.
Existing international law on climate change includes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its two instruments – the Kyoto Protocol, which expired in 2020, and the 2015 Paris Agreement. These laws define the obligations and responsibilities of countries based on their share of historical emissions. A group of about 40 rich and developed countries, which had the largest share of historical emissions in 1992, were held primarily responsible for climate change, and urged to reduce their emissions. They were also asked to provide finance and technology to developing nations to help fight climate change. Developing countries were asked to contribute to the effort but no specific responsibilities were assigned.
India said that this differentiated approach contained in the UNFCCC should continue to guide countries’ responsibilities and obligations with regard to climate change.
“The most obvious reason for the existence of different responsibilities is the contribution of different countries to the current state of environmental degradation … It is indisputable that developed countries have contributed according to the scientific consensus on climate change. The problem historically and even today… So, if the contribution to global environmental degradation is disproportionate, so must the responsibility (cleanup). Be uneven,” Rangrezi argued.
India also raised the issue of climate finance, finding that developed countries are not providing enough money to developing countries as mandated under the UNFCCC. A new finance deal reached in Baku last month calls for a tripling of aid from developed countries to $300 billion a year by 2035, from the current $100 billion a year, which it says is “too few and far between”.
“No fair or meaningful assessment of countries’ obligations can be made without simultaneously assessing the climate finance support provided to developing countries,” it said.
The ICJ hearing, which began on Monday, will continue next week. Although the advisory opinion is not binding on countries, the outcome of the case is expected to have a significant impact on the climate change debate, including the annual climate talks. It is also likely to set a precedent for the thousands of climate lawsuits brought to courts around the world in recent years seeking greater accountability from governments and corporations.