By Barrister Maham Fadia,
Climate change has been called the defining challenge of our century, but for millions across the Global South, it is already an everyday emergency. Small island states face the prospect of vanishing beneath rising seas. Farmers in Africa and South Asia endure crop failures from unprecedented droughts. Communities in Latin America and the Pacific are battered by stronger, deadlier storms. These impacts are not distant warnings from scientific models; they are present realities, disrupting lives and threatening survival.
What makes this crisis particularly unjust is the imbalance of responsibility. The countries most vulnerable to climate change have contributed the least to its causes. Small island developing states account for less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they are on the frontlines of existential risk. Meanwhile, the world’s largest economies—responsible for the overwhelming majority of historic and present emissions—possess the resources and capacity to act, but too often delay or dilute their commitments.
This is not merely an ethical dilemma. It is a failure of international law.
The Limits of Current Frameworks
Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate negotiations have achieved milestones—Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and Glasgow among them. The Paris Agreement, in particular, was celebrated as a triumph of multilateral diplomacy. Nearly every nation pledged to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C, with a commitment to progressively strengthen their climate targets over time.
But the Paris Agreement rests on voluntary pledges—“nationally determined contributions” (NDCs)—that lack binding enforcement. Countries may fall short of their targets with little consequence beyond diplomatic pressure. Wealthier nations have repeatedly promised climate finance to support developing countries, yet delivery remains inconsistent and far below the $100 billion per year goal.
This structure leaves vulnerable nations with promises instead of protections. The legal architecture of climate governance has not caught up to the scale of the emergency.
Pathways to Climate Justice Through Law
If climate justice is to be more than a slogan, international law must evolve to protect those at greatest risk. Three pathways are especially urgent:
1. Recognizing Loss and Damage as a Legal Obligation
The establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was an important milestone, acknowledging that some harms from climate change are irreversible. Yet contributions to this fund remain voluntary. For communities facing permanent land loss, cultural erasure, or forced displacement, assistance cannot depend on political goodwill. It must be treated as a legal obligation, comparable to reparations or binding financial commitments in other international treaties.
For example, just as trade disputes can trigger financial penalties under the World Trade Organization, failure to support vulnerable nations should carry clear consequences under climate agreements. Without this, the fund risks becoming another empty promise.
2. Embedding Human Rights Protections
Climate change is not only an environmental issue—it is a human rights issue. The right to life, food, water, housing, and health are all undermined by climate inaction. In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly formally recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This recognition should not remain symbolic. It must be woven into climate law, empowering individuals and communities to bring claims against governments and corporations that fail to act.
Courts in several countries are already leading the way. The Netherlands’ Supreme Court ruled in the Urgenda case that inadequate climate action violated citizens’ human rights. In Germany, the Constitutional Court held that insufficient policies unfairly burdened future generations. Expanding these principles at the international level would provide vulnerable communities with meaningful recourse.
3. Strengthening International Accountability
Momentum is building for international courts to play a greater role. In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ obligations regarding climate change. Similarly, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is considering states’ duties to protect the oceans from climate impacts.
These opinions may not be binding, but they can clarify legal norms and establish precedents that strengthen accountability. The next step must be to translate such guidance into enforceable obligations—whether through arbitration panels, new treaties with compliance mechanisms, or expanded jurisdiction of existing courts.
Beyond Law: Building Trust and Solidarity
Strengthening international law is not about punishing states. It is about restoring trust in a process that too often leaves vulnerable nations feeling sidelined. For decades, leaders from small island states have warned that they are fighting for survival, not for policy preferences. When wealthy nations over-promise and under-deliver, it erodes faith in multilateralism itself.
True climate justice requires that those with the greatest historical responsibility provide predictable, legally anchored support to those facing the gravest risks. It means ensuring that the voices of vulnerable nations are not tokenized in negotiations, but empowered with legal guarantees. It means recognizing that climate inaction is not just a policy failure but a violation of fundamental human rights.
A Call to Action
Climate change is the greatest collective action problem humanity has ever faced. But collective action without accountability is not enough. The Paris Agreement demonstrated that global cooperation is possible. The next phase of climate governance must demonstrate that global solidarity is enforceable.
The stakes could not be higher. For vulnerable nations, this is about survival. For the international community, it is about credibility. Without stronger legal enforcement, climate diplomacy risks becoming a theater of lofty speeches while the planet edges closer to catastrophe.
The climate clock is ticking, and with it, the window for justice narrows. International law must rise to this challenge—transforming climate promises into binding protections and ensuring that those least responsible for the crisis are not left to bear its heaviest costs alone.
About the Author
Barrister Maham Fadia is an International Climate Law Advisor and Legal Advisor to BRISD. She provides expert guidance on global climate governance, international legal frameworks, and sustainable policy solutions. Her work focuses on strengthening legal responses to climate change, promoting cross-border collaboration, and ensuring that environmental policies align with international commitments.
