The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) recently hosted an expert panel discussion to examine the implications of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, issued on 23 July 2025. The session brought together leading experts in international law, climate diplomacy, and policy to assess how the Opinion could shape global climate governance, national policy frameworks, and legal accountability.
Moderated by Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Distinguished Fellow at TERI, the panel included Prof Bharat Desai, Humboldt Award Professor at the University of Bonn; Prof Anirudh Rajput, Distinguished Professor of Law at National Law University, Delhi; Ms Anuradha R V, Partner at Clarus Law Associates; Advocate Jatinder Cheema, Supreme Court of India; Ambassador Manjeev Puri, Distinguished Fellow at TERI; Mr RR Rashmi, Distinguished Fellow at TERI; and Dr Nupur Choudhury, Assistant Professor at JNU’s CSLG.
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion firmly establishes that climate change is an existential threat and that States are bound by international law to act—not just through aspirational targets, but by taking measures to prevent serious environmental harm, protect human rights from climate impacts, and cooperate under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). It emphasises that failure to act adequately on climate change could amount to an internationally wrongful act, carrying legal consequences under the law of State responsibility. Importantly, the Opinion also extends State obligations to the regulation of private actors whose emissions or activities have cross-border environmental impacts.
Opening the discussion, Dr Ghosh highlighted that the Opinion could significantly influence how international agreements are interpreted and how national legal systems approach climate litigation and policy ambition. Prof Desai described the Opinion as a major development in international law, noting that it consolidates obligations spread across multiple environmental treaties into a coherent interpretation. Prof Rajput offered his analysis through the “4Cs” framework—confirmation, consequence, constraint, and contradiction—while expressing concern over the Court’s handling of the CBDR principle.
Prof. Bharat Desai stated, “However, it falls short from giving an interpretation commensurate with the planetary scale of threats that climate change poses.”
Ms Anuradha R V highlighted the issue of inconsistencies between environmental law and trade law, and mentioned, “We have been looking at international laws in silos which will not sustain in the long run. If we believe Sustainable Development is three dimensional with socio economic and environmental aspects, we need to give each a separate primacy and address them specifically and coherently.”
Prof. Anirudh Rajput said, “NDCs have to be directed towards the goal of bringing down global temperatures. It is promising to see that the court is taking into account the scientific data seriously, case in point being the IPCC data. Advocate Jatinder Cheema underscored that the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle are integral to Indian environmental law. “Climate is a shared responsibility. The ICJ Opinion is not just a legal document, it is a reflection of collective, ethical and legal actions. It is a mirror held up to the world showing where we stand and the roadmap.”
Ambassador Puri observed that the Opinion strengthens calls for equity and ambition in global climate negotiations but warned against overinterpreting legal opinions without considering the complex realities of policymaking, especially in developing nations. Mr Rashmi pointed out that while the UNFCCC clearly sets out these principles, the challenge lies in ensuring equitable distribution of obligations. Dr Choudhury added that the ICJ’s interpretation links CBDR-RC more closely to the Paris Agreement, which is narrower than the original UNFCCC framing, though equity remains central to how obligations will be understood in future.
The panel agreed that the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion marks a transformative moment in climate jurisprudence. By explicitly connecting legal responsibility to climate inaction, it is expected to shape future international negotiations, influence national legal reforms, and strengthen the global resolve to address climate change with urgency. Through this dialogue, TERI reaffirmed its role as a leading institution at the intersection of environment, energy, and sustainable development, fostering informed debate that integrates legal, policy, and ethical perspectives into the global climate action agenda.
Discover more from SolarQuarter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
