TERI hosts expert panel discussion on ICJ’s landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change Obligations

New Delhi, August 5, 2025: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) today convened an expert panel discussion to explore 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. Explicating the ICJ Advisory Opinion, the session brought together leading voices from international law, climate diplomacy, and policy to unpack the opinion’s far-reaching impact on global climate governance, legal responsibility, and national policy frameworks.

Moderated by Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Distinguished Fellow at TERI, the panel featured Prof Bharat Desai, Humboldt Award Professor at the Institute of International Law, University of Bonn; Prof Anirudh Rajput, Distinguished Professor of Law at National Law University, Delhi; Ms Anuradha R V, Partner at Clarus Law Associates; Adv Jatinder Cheema, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India; Amb Manjeev Puri, Distinguished Fellow at TERI; Mr RR Rashmi, Distinguished Fellow at TERI; and Dr Nupur Choudhury, Assistant Professor, CSLG, JNU.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion unequivocally affirms that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity and the planet, and that States are bound by international law, not merely for aspirational targets, but to prevent serious environmental harm, safeguard human rights from climate impacts, and collaborate meaningfully under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). Notably, the Opinion recognises that a State’s failure to act appropriately or decisively on climate change could amount to an internationally wrongful act, triggering legal consequences under the law of State responsibility. It also extends obligations to include the regulation of private actors whose emissions or actions have cross-border environmental impacts.

Opening the session, Dr Prodipto Ghosh said that this advisory opinion could influence not only how international agreements are interpreted but also how national legal systems respond to climate litigation and policy ambition.

Prof Bharat Desai called the Opinion a critical development in international law. It has consolidated the existing obligations of the states mentioned across multiple environmental laws into a coherent interpretation. “However, it falls short from giving an interpretation commensurate with the planetary scale of threats that climate change poses”, he said.

Ms Anuradha R V highlighted the issue of inconsistencies between environmental law and trade law. “We have been looking at international laws in silos which will not sustain in the long run,” she said. “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 cohrently” she remarked.

Prof Anirudh Rajput shared his perspective on the subject based on the 4Cs – confirmation, consequence, constraint and contradiction. “NDCs have to be directed towards the goal of bringing down the 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.” He expressed his disappointment at the lack of maturity in the Court’s handling of the CBDR.

Advocate Jatinder Cheema underscored that 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,” he stated.

Ambassador Manjeev Puri noted that the Opinion reinforces calls for equity and ambition in international climate negotiations. “International law is about the power game of the nations”, he said. Cautioning against the overinterpretation of the legal opinions, he pointed out that “there is a lack of understanding of the policy space, particularly in the developing countries where it takes a very long time [to emerge]” and cannot be codified into the legal language so easily.

Mr RR Rashmi pointed out that the principles have been laid down in clarity by UNFCCC. “The obligation exists, but the question is of an equitable distribution,” he remarked. According to him, the impacts of climate change are being felt by everyone though the nexus needs to be established.

Dr Nupur Choudhury said, the ICJ has in some ways tied the scope of the CBDR-RC to the Paris Agreement, which is somewhat a diluted version of what it means in the UNFCCC. “[Yet}, equity continues to be one of the fundamental principles which would determine the way obligations will be interpreted” and goes beyond the CBDR-RC interpretation of the ICJ.

The expert panel unanimously acknowledged the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion as a transformative milestone in international climate jurisprudence. By linking legal accountability to climate inaction, the Opinion is expected to influence future negotiations, guide national legal reforms, and strengthen the global resolve to act decisively against climate change.

As a leading policy research institution working at the intersection of environment, energy, and sustainable development, TERI’s convening of this timely dialogue reflects its commitment to driving informed discussions that integrate legal, ethical, and developmental perspectives on global climate action.