By Barrister Maham Fadia,
Each year, the world gathers at United Nations climate conferences to announce new pledges and reaffirm commitments. Yet despite decades of negotiations and countless declarations, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The latest assessments show that we are far off track from the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This growing gap between climate law on paper and climate policy in practice is one of the greatest challenges to effective global climate governance.
The Paris Agreement was designed to be universal and flexible. Its system of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) allowed every country—big or small, rich or poor—to set its own targets. The idea was that transparency and peer pressure would create momentum for more ambitious commitments over time. But this model, while politically pragmatic, has revealed a critical flaw: there are no real consequences for failing to meet these commitments.
As a result, many governments submit climate plans that are either insufficient, unrealistic, or never fully implemented. The law exists, but enforcement is weak. International climate law risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Why Enforcement Matters
Climate change is not like other policy challenges. Its impacts are global, irreversible, and deeply unequal. If one country weakens its commitments or delays action, the cost is borne by all—especially the most vulnerable communities. Unlike trade agreements or arms treaties, where violations carry clear penalties, climate agreements rely heavily on goodwill. That goodwill has proven inadequate in the face of powerful fossil fuel interests and short-term political cycles.
Strong enforcement is not about punishing countries. It is about ensuring that international cooperation delivers real results. Without it, climate law risks becoming an endless cycle of pledges that fail to translate into meaningful action.
Pathways to Close the Gap
If we are to move from promises to progress, international climate governance must evolve in three key ways:
1. Establish Binding Compliance Mechanisms
Future agreements should go beyond voluntary reporting and establish enforceable obligations. This could include independent verification of emissions data, mandatory review of NDCs, and clear consequences for non-compliance. Sanctions—ranging from restrictions on carbon-intensive trade to financial penalties—could be introduced for persistent failure.
Other international regimes provide models. The World Trade Organization, for example, has binding dispute settlement mechanisms that compel states to align policies with agreed rules. Climate change, with far higher stakes, deserves no less.
2. Integrate Climate Obligations Across International Law
Climate change cannot be siloed. Its impacts touch human rights, trade, migration, security, and public health. By embedding climate obligations into these domains of international law, states can be held accountable through multiple channels. For instance, trade agreements could require adherence to climate commitments as a condition for market access. Migration frameworks could address climate displacement as a matter of legal responsibility.
Such cross-cutting integration would make climate law harder to ignore and reinforce its central role in global governance.
3. Empower Courts and Communities
Around the world, courts are increasingly stepping in where politics fail. From the Urgenda case in the Netherlands to youth-led lawsuits in the United States, litigation has forced governments to strengthen climate policies. At the international level, advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) could establish clearer standards for state responsibility.
Equally important, communities must be empowered to bring claims against those who fail to act. Expanding access to justice—through regional courts, arbitration panels, and even a dedicated climate tribunal—would bridge the gap between high-level promises and lived realities.
A Question of Trust and Credibility
The gap between law and policy is not just technical; it is political. Vulnerable nations, particularly in the Global South, often feel sidelined in climate negotiations. They are asked to trust in a process where powerful nations make grand pledges but fail to deliver—on emissions reductions, on finance, on technology transfer. This erodes faith in the system and undermines global solidarity.
Closing this gap is about rebuilding credibility. When wealthy nations fail to meet their obligations, it is not simply a policy shortfall. It is a breach of trust with the communities already enduring the brunt of climate impacts.
A Turning Point
The climate crisis demands more than ambition—it demands accountability. The Paris Agreement was a milestone in collective commitment. But collective commitment without enforceable action is not enough. If we are serious about preventing climate catastrophe, we must be equally serious about ensuring compliance with climate law.
The transition from pledges to action will not be easy. It will require political courage, legal innovation, and a willingness to hold even the most powerful actors accountable. But without it, the world risks a future where climate law becomes a stage for speeches rather than a safeguard for people.
As the window to limit warming narrows, international climate law must do more than inspire. It must compel. Only then can we ensure that the promises of today translate into a livable tomorrow.
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.
