China Mocks Itself With Own World Court? Beijing To Serve Int'l Justice In Hong Kong
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Why the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change opens the window for a new, restorative vision of environmental law in India
By Elsa Mustafa After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its historic advisory opinion on climate change on July 23, much of the focus has been on what the court said on emissions, human rights, and financial reparations. But a profound thread runs through the judgment, which has been brought into sharper focus in the separate opinion by Judge Hilary Charlesworth. It is the idea that biodiversity is not merely a passive victim of climate change but a legal and ecological actor in its own right. Seen through this lens, the ICJ's opinion becomes more than just a warning to polluters — it is a call to re-enchant our relationship with the living world, to see ecosystems not just as 'resources' but as climate allies, the carriers of rights, and the subjects of legal care. For India, a country with rich biodiversity and spiritual nature ethics, as well as climate vulnerability, this idea opens the window to a new, restorative vision of environmental law. The ICJ has explicitly recognised the biosphere as a component of the climate system, encompassing 'all ecosystems and living organisms'. This makes the protection of nature a core climate duty, not just a secondary concern. This would make mitigation and adaptation about more than just wind turbines or emissions trading, but also about reviving forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and sacred groves. Judge Charlesworth has reinforced this view. She has drawn attention to the intersubjectivity between climate change and environmental degradation, noting that obligations under international law must be interpreted with an 'ecologically literate understanding'. This ecological literacy requires us to break from siloed legal thinking, and to see ecosystems as part of a complex web of duties and relationships. India is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth, home to more than 7% of global fauna and 12% of flora. It is also among the most vulnerable to climate change – with the Himalayan glaciers retreating, the Sundarbans mangroves drowning, and the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot facing deforestation and fragmentation. All these are not just ecological losses, they are climate failures in legal terms. The ICJ's opinion has given India a strong platform for the integration of biodiversity protection directly into its climate obligations. * Forests as legal carbon sinks: Paragraphs 446 and 457 of the opinion recognise the obligation of states to 'preserve and enhance' greenhouse gas sinks, forests, wetlands, and oceans. For India, this affirms that protecting biodiversity is not just a constitutional obligation (Article 48A), but also an international climate duty. * Sundarbans and the right to life: India's Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (right to life) to include the right to a healthy environment. The ICJ has now internationalised this idea. If the destruction of mangroves worsens the climate risks for local communities, India is bound both legally and morally to protect those ecosystems. * Sacred ecosystems as climate assets: Many Indian ecosystems such as riverine forests, sacred groves, and highland meadows are protected by not just law, but also by culture. The ICJ's emphasis on local knowledge and inclusive governance (Charlesworth, paras 10-13) creates space for India to recognise community-led biodiversity as part of its national climate strategy. * Biodiversity as justice: Judge Charlesworth's opinion includes a critique of the ways in which historical power dynamics have shaped environmental laws. She reminds us that legal systems formed at a time of colonial expansion often led to ignorance of the worldviews of indigenous and colonised peoples. This insight matters deeply for India, whose forest and wildlife laws emerged from colonial control, not community stewardship. Since the ICJ has now recognised that the obligation to prevent environmental harm is global and ongoing (para 134), India has a basis to argue not just for aid or transition support, but for restorative environmental justice. Reparations must go beyond money – they must include returning agency to indigenous forest dwellers, regenerating lost biodiversity, and protecting community ecosystems. Policy horizons: the way forward for India This legal moment offers India the opportunity to reimagine its environmental governance in line with the ICJ's vision. Some concrete steps could include: * Integrating climate-biodiversity into India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement: This requires amendments to include ecosystem restoration targets. Afforestation is already a part of India's mitigation plan; ecological restoration – including restoring native species, protecting seed banks, and preventing monoculture – must become a central focus. * Recognising legal rights of ecosystems within: Indian courts have already declared the Ganga and Yamuna as legal persons. The ICJ's opinion strengthens the legal basis for extending personhood to biodiversity-rich landscapes, especially those that are threatened by development. * Community-based climate restoration: Tribal and forest-dependent communities must become frontline climate protectors. The ICJ's stress on 'inclusive participation' (Charlesworth, para 13) supports expanding programs like Joint Forest Management (JFM) and recognising community conservation areas as being climate-critical. * Legal reform to end silos: Environmental law in India is fragmented, with all its various aspects being governed separately. The ICJ's judgment invites India to develop integrated environmental legislation, perhaps through a Biodiversity-Climate Protection Act, which would reflect the living interdependence of ecological systems. A soulful challenge: will and wisdom The ICJ's final lines state that a 'lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom' (para 456). It is a poetic end to a legal document, and a call that resonates deeply with India's civilisational ethos. India has always revered nature as sacred, sentient, and cyclical – from the Chipko movement of the 1970s to the tribal belief that cutting a tree without prayer brings misfortune. India's climate future may depend less on courtroom litigation and more on awakening this spiritual-ecological consciousness into legal and political will. Judge Charlesworth warns against technocratic minimalism. She writes that focusing solely on quantifiable targets runs the risk of erasing the lived experiences of ecological collapse (Charlesworth, para 18). For India, this would mean not just measuring emissions but also listening to the river-worshippers, the honey collectors, the forest women, and the fisherfolk, whose lives lie the hidden costs of climate injustice. Conclusion: planting justice, growing climate peace The ICJ's opinion, along with Judge Charlesworth's lens, has offered us a chance to advance our restorative vision of climate law that centres ecosystems and communities. For India, it has provided a path forward that passes not only through courtroom advocacy, but also seeks to align legal frameworks with rich ancient ecological wisdom and constitutional values. If this shift takes place, India will transform itself from a climate-vulnerable nation to a global leader in climate-biodiversity justice – one that is rooted not just in emissions metrics, but in the soil, the grove, and the spirit of its land. (The author, a Masters in Law from Tilburg University in The Netherlands, teaches at Alliance University, Bengaluru.)
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
What the ICJ ruling means for the Kyoto Protocol
While defining the obligations of countries in the global fight against climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a crucial clarification regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its validity in a landmark ruling last week. The ICJ has said the Kyoto Protocol not only continues to remain in force, but is also legally relevant, and that countries remain under a legal obligation to comply with its provisions. The ICJ ruling is the first time that an authoritative assertion has been made on the legal status of the Kyoto Protocol in the post-Paris Agreement period. The common understanding so far has been that the Kyoto Protocol was replaced and superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol had ceased to exist, or at least became non-operational or defunct, once the Paris Agreement came into effect in 2016, or at the most when the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended in 2020. But the Kyoto Protocol was never terminated or abrogated by any process. The ICJ has now clarified that it continues to remain in force and has the status of international law. The Kyoto Protocol, which was finalised in 1997 and came into effect in 2005, was the first legal instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement sought to operationalise the provisions of the UNFCCC through specific climate actions from countries. It assigned specific targets to rich and developed countries to reduce their emissions in particular time frames, called commitment periods. Developing countries did not have any such targets, and were encouraged to take 'nationally appropriate' actions to help the fight against climate change. This was in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), one of the foundational tenets of international climate law. This principle, in effect, says while the whole world has a responsibility to take actions against climate change, the bulk of the responsibility lies with rich and developed countries. That is because these countries accounted for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the last 150 years, which have caused climate change. The Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012, and the second from 2012 to 2020. Developed countries, a group of about 40 mentioned by name in Annex-I of the UNFCCC, had to reduce their GHG emissions by assigned amounts during these periods from baseline values in 1990. These countries also had to provide finance and technology to developing countries to help them tackle climate change, in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the world's largest emitter, both in current terms at that time and historically, did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. Several other countries, such as Canada and Japan, either walked out of the Kyoto Protocol at a later stage, or refused to accept binding targets for the second commitment period. Developed countries argued that climate objectives could not be achieved if large emitters, such as China, did not contribute to the effort. China, classified as a developing country in the UNFCCC, overtook the US as the world's largest emitter of GHGs by the mid-2000s. However, it did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. This argument led to efforts to create another legal climate agreement that would ensure the participation of every country. It took the form of the Paris Agreement. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement did not assign emission reduction targets to any country. Rather, countries themselves had to decide what climate actions they would take. This was called nationally-determined contributions (NDCs). So, while the Kyoto Protocol was top-down, the Paris Agreement took a bottom-up approach. The Paris Agreement did not supersede or terminate the Kyoto Protocol. But a third commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, beyond 2020, was never defined. After the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended, the understanding was that it would exist alongside the Paris Agreement for a few years. However, its legal status after 2020 was not very clear. Since it was not terminated, it continued to exist but was not understood to have any relevance. The ICJ has ruled that the Kyoto Protocol remains in force, and countries party to it still have to fulfil their legal obligations under its provisions. 'The Court considers that the lack of agreement on a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the adoption of the Paris Agreement does not mean that the Kyoto Protocol has been terminated. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, remains part of the applicable law,' the ICJ said. The international court has also ruled that non-compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol would constitute an internationally wrongful act. '[T]he absence of a new commitment period does not deprive the Kyoto Protocol of its legal effect. The Kyoto Protocol remains in force… non-compliance with emission reduction commitments by a State may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' the ICJ said. The ruling has clarified that compliance with the targets of the first commitment period is still open for assessment. Note that not all countries have fulfilled their relatively modest emissions reduction targets in the first commitment period. 'While there is no active commitment period at present, the treaty remains in force and relevant, including as a means for assessing the compliance of parties with their commitments during the first commitment period,' the ICJ said. The ICJ ruling came after it was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries to protect the climate system, and the legal consequences of not fulfilling them. To give its ruling, the court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. Although the ICJ has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce GHG emissions and can be held liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so, the ruling is not binding on countries. That is because it is an advisory opinion. However, the ruling opens up the possibility of increased climate litigation, seeking greater accountability from countries to take more effective climate actions.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
New dimensions to high stakes plastics negotiations
Negotiators will arrive in Geneva on August 5 to continue, and hopefully, conclude negotiations on the first global treaty to address the issues posed by plastics. This meeting is an extension of the negotiations in Busan last December, where countries were unable to agree on a final text. Recent non-binding opinions by both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on the connection between the climate crisis--of which plastic pollution is a major contributor--human rights, and State responsibility, have added new dimensions to what are likely to be fraught negotiations. While these judgements can be a catalyst for consensus to address the issue of plastic pollution, the treaty and its negotiations continue to face issues that have plagued environmental treaties of the past--disagreements over form, and access to finance and technology, have contributed to countries' inability to come to an agreement on what the treaty should look like. Plastics (Pixabay) Plastic is an essential component of the economy, with $1.2 trillion global plastics trade, and is manufactured from fossil fuels, the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. They are used everywhere, from packaging, to industrial applications, sports, agriculture and defence. The industry is also capital intensive, driving employment and investment, making plastics a driver of industrialisation. Around 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year, and this number is expected to triple by 2060. At the same time, the deleterious effects from unchecked manufacture are pervasive. Microplastics have been found in the human body, and plastic pollution has been documented in remote areas like Mount Everest. Additionally, several nations face labour protection concerns due to unsafe working conditions, exposing workers, especially children, to accidents and injury. Given the central role of plastics in the economy, and the risks they pose, a global treaty to address plastic pollution is necessary. The United Nations Environment Assembly launched negotiations for a global plastics treaty in 2022. However, several issues of disagreement have resulted in almost three years of gridlock. The primary point of concern exists between two specific groups--the 'Like-Minded Group' consisting of producers of oil and gas and manufacturers of plastic, such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China, which supports a focus on waste management and recycling to address plastic pollution, and the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), comprising countries that support a lifecycle approach and caps on plastic production. However, this dichotomy is not the only obstacle towards concluding a robust treaty. Concerns which have plagued previous environmental treaties, impact these negotiations as well. Chief among these is the consistent shortfall of funding provided by developed nations to various climate agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Convention on Biodiversity. Second is the issue of transfer of technology and capacity, with concerns around protection of intellectual property taking precedence, rather than prioritising environmental protection. Third, plastic production and manufacture has largely been outsourced by the developed world to emerging markets, relocating emissions, but also creating large economies and labour forces dependent on this industry. A treaty that fails to address these concerns is likely to be a non-starter. The opinions of the ICJ and the IACtHR can create the path towards consensus. The ICJ's opinion has opened the door for climate litigation and grounds for attribution of responsibility to states for their actions that contribute to the climate crisis, including actions which include an increase in fossil fuel production or consumption, such as manufacturing of plastics. A recognition of the duty of countries to prevent harm gives the HAC a stronger footing to demand a focus on the entire value chain of plastic production, and not just waste management processes. Concurrently, the legal pronouncements reinforce the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities--a key component of environmental treaty making and a core part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), requiring developed countries to show their commitment to combating change by increasing financial contributions and assistance through technology transfer and capacity building. These commitments are no longer just voluntary actions of good faith, but responsibilities of States who have been the larger contributors to climate change. Furthermore, the principles put forward by the opinions focus on a just transition. This can accelerate discussions around a time-bound reduction in plastic manufacture, giving members of the Like-Minded Group time to retrain their workforce, diversify industry, and ensure adequate alternatives for workers involved. Historically, the negotiations around addressing global plastic pollution were political in nature. The opinions have now defined a concrete legal framework within which negotiations can take place. However, this framework must be interpreted and applied in a manner that works for all parties. Because plastic pollution crosses borders, a global effort is needed to address the issues that plastics pose. These legal developments provide negotiators with a potential mechanism to break the existing deadlock. This article is authored by Kartik Ashta, international law and sustainability expert, Geneva.
