India accused the developed nations of exploiting the global carbon budget, failing to honour climate-finance commitments, and unfairly demanding that developing countries curb their resource use. Picture: HowardWiks/pixabay
As climate change wreaks havoc across the globe and the world grapples with ways to mitigate its effects, there is growing pressure on the developing world to put money where its mouth is.
And India is leading the charge which has the support of many developing countries including South Africa for a just financial dispensation to counter the effects of climate change.
The world’s most populous country has been critical of the skewed financial burden placed on developing countries which are the least responsible for damaging emissions, compared to rich industrialised countries. India and other developing nations are also concerned about the glaring gap in climate financing.
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries had pledged $100 billion annually to help developing nations transition to greener economies and adapt to the harsh effects of climate change.
However, according to Climate Fact Checks, an independent, digital platform on climate change, “that promise still needs to be fulfilled, leaving many vulnerable countries struggling to deal with rising sea levels, erratic weather patterns, and more frequent natural disasters.”
India’s frustrations came to the fore at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings held in December 2024 to determine the “Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change” following calls for a legal opinion on the matter from a group of Pacific Island states, with the island nation of Vanuatu spearheading a global campaign to seek this advisory opinion.
They were seeking clarity on the obligations of states under international law to safeguard the climate system from pollution and harmful emissions; and the legal consequences when such emissions cause significant environmental harm.
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion will be delivered sometime this year.
India was among 70 States (including 19 African States), regional organisations including the European Union, the African Union (representing 55 African States) and the Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, as well as several non-governmental organisations which made presentations to the ICJ to clarify what countries are legally obligated to do.
India accused the developed nations of exploiting the global carbon budget, failing to honour climate-finance commitments, and unfairly demanding that developing countries curb their resource use.
Climate Fact Checks reported: “India’s representatives at the ICJ didn’t mince words, pointing out that these broken promises highlight a profound systemic failure in addressing the global climate crisis fairly.
“The Indian delegation shed light on how this funding shortfall affects entire regions. For nations across South Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, the lack of financial support means slower progress in switching to clean energy, fragile infrastructure unable to withstand climate shocks, and growing socio-economic inequalities. “This isn’t just about figures on a spreadsheet,” the delegation stressed. “It’s about real lives being disrupted by a crisis they didn’t create.”
India also called on developed countries to meet their financial commitments and take meaningful steps to transfer technology to developing nations, arguing that without affordable and advanced technologies the dream of a sustainable future will remain out of reach for millions..
India’s representative Luther Rangreji called on the ICJ to take cognisance of historic emissions, climate justice, the principle of equity, and the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). This principle requires countries to take responsibility based on their contributions to environmental harm. The Indian delegation warned that overlooking historical realities would unjustly burden developing countries with a crisis they didn’t create, and deepen existing inequalities in an already skewed system.
Calling for equitable access to the global carbon budget and stressing the principle of fairness and equity, Rangreji said, “If the contribution to global environmental degradation is unequal, the responsibility should also be unequal.”
The Indian delegation argued that while countries like the United States, China, and the European Union were historically the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, the Global South was left to suffer the worst of its consequences. India’s representative who highlighted data that show developed nations’ per capita emissions far exceeded those of developing countries, said: “The numbers speak for themselves.”
South Africa’s Ambassador to the Netherlands Vusimuzi Madonsela, emphasised South Africa’s disproportionate vulnerability to climate change. “We are already facing significant challenges of water scarcity and food insecurity, compounded by slow-onset and extreme weather events. The unprecedented severe flooding and destruction of infrastructure that occurred over the past few years is now followed by the onset of a new drought cycle. This has a devastating impact on our people and the country’s ecosystems.”
The South African delegation echoed India’s position regarding Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), arguing that developed countries should bear greater responsibility because of their historical emissions. He noted that the “multilateral climate regime” recognised that “the historical responsibility for emissions [lie] at the doorstep of developed countries, hence the primary burden of responsibility for addressing it rests on their shoulders”.
Madonsela supported India’s position about developed nations not fulfilling their responsibilities saying: “Developed countries have accepted legal responsibility for reducing emissions, yet they have largely failed to honour it…”
The presentations by India and South Africa carried a strong message that the fight against climate change is a shared responsibility whose burden must be distributed in line with each country’s contributions and capabilities.
This is the first time that the ICJ, also known as the World Court, has taken up the issue of climate change and countries’ responsibilities in addressing it. Hopefully, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion will herald a fairer approach to global climate accountability. ENDS
BUSINESS REPORT