By Barrister Maham Fadia,
When the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough. Nearly every nation pledged to limit global warming to “well below” two degrees Celsius, with an aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees. Yet, a decade later, the world remains on track for 2.7 to 3 degrees of warming. This glaring gap between promises and reality raises an uncomfortable truth: international climate agreements, though ambitious in rhetoric, are weak in enforcement.
The Paris Agreement rests on voluntary commitments—known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Each country sets its own climate targets, reports progress, and revises ambitions over time. While this approach encouraged universal participation, it also created a framework without teeth. There are no binding penalties for failure, no international court empowered to compel action, and no sanctions for laggards. At best, nations face “naming and shaming.” At worst, they face no consequences at all.
This lack of legal enforceability undermines not only the Paris Agreement but the credibility of global climate governance itself. Climate change is not a problem that respects borders. If one country weakens its commitments, the costs are borne by all—particularly small island states, least developed countries, and vulnerable communities already living with climate disasters.
So, what can be done? Strengthening the legal enforcement of international climate agreements is not only necessary but urgent. Several steps can help close the gap between pledges and action:
1. Integrate Binding Compliance Mechanisms.
Future agreements must move beyond voluntary pledges. While flexibility is necessary, countries should face enforceable obligations for transparency, emissions reduction, and financial contributions. Clear consequences—ranging from financial penalties to trade restrictions—could be tied to non-compliance.
2. Expand the Role of International Courts.
Recent advisory opinions requested from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on climate obligations show promise. These institutions could serve as venues where states and communities hold governments accountable for failing to meet climate responsibilities under existing treaties and customary international law.
3. Legally Anchor Climate Finance Commitments.
Developing countries cannot transition without resources. Legal obligations around climate finance—rather than vague promises—would ensure predictable support for mitigation, adaptation, and loss-and-damage recovery. This could be modeled on existing binding financial commitments in other international treaties.
4. Recognize Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue.
International law increasingly acknowledges that climate inaction threatens fundamental rights: to life, health, food, and shelter. Embedding climate obligations in human rights law could empower individuals and communities to challenge inadequate policies in both domestic and international courts.
Critics argue that binding enforcement is politically unrealistic. But so was a global agreement on climate change until Paris proved otherwise. The climate crisis leaves little room for half measures. Without credible enforcement, international climate diplomacy risks becoming little more than a stage for lofty speeches, while emissions continue to rise.
The world does not lack ambition—it lacks accountability. Stronger legal enforcement is not about punishing nations but about protecting people. It is about ensuring that climate commitments are more than words on paper. If the Paris Agreement was the beginning of a collective promise, the next generation of climate agreements must be the beginning of collective accountability.
The climate clock is ticking. International law must keep pace.
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.
