India also urged the ICJ to avoid creating new obligations that go beyond the existing climate-change framework.
“The court may exercise due caution to avoid devising new or additional obligations beyond what is already agreed under the existing climate-change regime, which take into consideration historic emissions, climate justice and the principal principle of equity and CBDR-RC, as well as the equitable access to the global carbon budget,” the country said.China and the United States have also told the court that the existing UN framework is sufficient to determine States’ legal obligations to fight climate change.
Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said, “If contribution to degradation is unequal, responsibility must also be unequal.”
He said climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, but the solutions must respect the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), which is at the heart of the climate-change regime.
“It is inequitable and unjust to expect countries with negligible historical emissions to bear an equal burden in mitigating climate change…. Developed nations must lead by example by achieving net zero well before 2050 and providing the means of implementation to developing nations,” India said.
Rangreji said developing nations are the hardest hit by climate change, despite contributing the least to it.
“The developed world, which historically contributed the most, is ironically the best equipped with the technological and economic means to address this challenge,” the official said.
He criticised rich countries for enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels while discouraging developing nations from using their own energy resources.
“Countries which have reaped development benefits from exploiting fossil fuels demand developing countries to not utilise the energy resources available to them,” India argued.
It said the obligations of developing countries under the Paris Agreement are dependent on the fulfilment of two important factors — one, aspects of climate finance and two, climate justice.
India also slammed the lack of action on climate-finance commitments.
“The USD 100 billion pledged at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 by developed country parties and the doubling of the contribution to the Adaptation Fund have not yet been translated into any concrete actions,” it noted.
India called the new climate-finance package for the Global South agreed at COP29 in Azerbaijan’s Baku “too little, too distant” to meet the urgent needs of developing countries.
“Climate finance is a critical enabler for planning and implementing ambitious climate actions and an essential element for building trust in climate multilateralism. Any fair or meaningful assessment of obligations of States cannot be conducted without simultaneously assessing the climate-finance support provided,” the country said.
India stressed the principle of fairness and equity, saying, “If contribution to global environmental degradation is unequal, the responsibility should also be unequal.”
The fast-developing South Asian nation also reaffirmed its commitment to its climate targets under the Paris Agreement but warned against overburdening its citizens.
“There is a limit on how much we burden our citizens, even when India is pursuing Sustainable Development Goals for one-sixth of humanity,” it said.
India is home to about 17.8 per cent of the current global population. However, its contribution to climate change is less than 4 per cent historically.
“Our per capita greenhouse gas emissions are less than half of the global average. Nevertheless, India has been undertaking ambitious national climate actions in good faith as a solutions provider.
“Despite having overriding priorities for poverty eradication and achieving Sustainable Development Goals, India has contributed more than its fair share in the global climate actions,” Rangreji stressed.
The country also said the science behind climate change is evolving and it may carry biases based on the choices made in interpreting evidence. Therefore, it said, decisions on who should do what cannot be guided by science alone.
The hearing is the result of years of campaigning by Pacific island nations and Vanuatu, which led to a UN resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion. Over the next two weeks, 98 countries, including small island nations and large emitters, will present their views.
Though non-binding, the ICJ’s opinion could set a moral and legal benchmark in the global fight against climate change.
