Finally, the moment has arrived. After years of hearings and prolonged deliberations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a landmark Advisory Opinion (AO): nations have an obligation to address climate change.
This obligation is centred on the principle of the duty of care, which, in lay terms, implies the responsibility of governments to make efforts and take reasonable actions to avoid the harmful consequences of anthropogenic climate change, alongside the duty to cooperate with other nations globally.
Though the ruling is technically just an Advisory Opinion—meaning it is not legally binding—it is certain to greatly influence future climate-related court rulings around the world, further affirming the case for climate litigation.
We are talking about a relatively new branch of litigation that focuses on the impact that climate change can have on our planet. While the same approach can be used to challenge the proliferation of fossil fuels, already in 2024 alone, according to the renowned Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), there have been at least 226 new climate cases.
The vast majority of these cases—precisely 80 percent—address governments’ inaction. According to the Grantham Research Institute, “the claimants’ motives go beyond the concerns of the individual litigant and aim at advancing climate policies, creating public awareness, or changing the behaviour of a government or industry actor.”
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion has been a long time coming. Its roots trace back to a spark lit by law students at the University of the South Pacific. What began as a local campaign quickly evolved into a global, youth-led movement.
Nepali youth were right at the heart of it. The World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ) Nepal Front, part of this global alliance, played an instrumental role both internationally and at home. From contributing to the Government of Nepal’s first written submission to the ICJ to anchoring global legal concepts in Nepal’s distinct ecological and legal context, their work has been transformative.
Through the Local Conference of Youth (LCOY), legal literacy sessions, partnerships with national organisations, and storytelling from the frontlines of Himalayan climate displacement, Nepal’s youth helped translate climate injustice into a call for legal accountability.
By working with legal experts, government officials, civil society, and the media, they reframed climate change not just as an environmental crisis, but as a human rights and justice issue—pushing the conversation beyond mitigation and adaptation towards legal responsibility, equity, and remedy.
SHIFT for Our Planet: Youths urge authorities to make climate j...
Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, representing Nepal at the ICJ, emphasised this when she said: “We are being penalised for mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”
The AO carries profound legal, moral, and political weight, and is expected to shape future jurisprudence, strengthen accountability mechanisms, and empower climate-vulnerable communities—especially those in the Global South.
It also opens the door to new climate litigation that could challenge the status quo.
What was, just a few years ago, a completely emerging field of legal practice is now becoming mainstream. The implications are significant for developing and lower-middle-income nations like Nepal, where climate litigation is still in its infancy.
Historically, such litigation has been pursued mainly in wealthy, industrialised countries. But there is immense potential to harness the power of climate litigation in the Global South as well.
Nepal, one of the most climate-vulnerable nations on Earth, has been striving to centre its policymaking around the principles of climate justice.
These efforts have driven progressive and audacious government goals and targets, as manifested in the latest Nationally Determined Contributions recently submitted by the federal government to the UNFCCC. Climate litigation can play an even more significant role in advancing this quest for justice.
It is important to remember that this Advisory Opinion is not an isolated case of jurisprudence placing the onus on states. Though it is the most consequential, the ICJ’s decision builds on several important international rulings.
Just a few weeks ago, for example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an Advisory Opinion stating that countries must protect the climate system as part of their human rights obligations. It focused on how the climate crisis affects numerous rights of individuals and communities—including Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, rural communities, and children—which must be protected under a high degree of care.
Moreover, this AO emphasises that not only states, but also corporations, have binding obligations under international law to address the climate crisis as a human rights emergency.
Nepal could be fertile ground for promoting climate litigation. As the nation seeks new development and economic opportunities—often tied to infrastructure projects that, in many cases (including hydropower), have harmful environmental and climate consequences—Nepal needs to tread very carefully.
Many of these investments require massive resources, and there is always the risk of opaque interests influencing decisions, rather than adherence to true national priorities guided by sustainability. This unchecked development race is often driven by the dangerous nexus among politics, businesspeople, and banks. This is precisely why Nepal has a strong rationale to develop and scale climate litigation.
The country is not starting from scratch.
There have already been success stories—such as the legal victory against the construction of Nijgadh Airport, a case where the state supported a disastrous project for the environment and climate. Given the government’s continued interest in the project, more legal battles are expected.
But perhaps an even more pressing legal battle looms—one that will require not only strong grassroots advocacy but also the best legal minds in the nation: the possible commencement of methane extraction in the Dailekh district.
With the support of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, those who believe that the Nepali state must fulfil its duty of care for its citizens and future generations cannot ignore the potential consequences of fossil fuel extraction.
If the federal government decides to proceed with methane extraction in Dailekh, this must be litigated in Nepal’s courts. Should the government pursue this path—not only dangerous but arguably illegal under international law—Nepal would find itself in a clear, stark, and morally indefensible contradiction.
How can a nation that demands climate justice and reparations for its melting Himalayan glaciers also act so irresponsibly, pursuing an economic pathway not rooted in sustainability but in short-sighted self-interest? Let’s remind ourselves of the most recent climate-induced disasters.
Just a few weeks ago, Rasuwa experienced a major flood caused by a glacial lake outburst, likely triggered by climate change. Thame was torn apart by a glacial flood. Halji in the Limi Valley watches its rivers shift and fields vanish.
As glaciers melt and rivers rise, Nepal’s fragile mountain ecosystems are being pushed to the edge—often by climate impacts triggered far beyond its borders. This is exactly what transboundary harm looks like. And with the AO in hand, even these experiences could form the basis for future climate litigation—not just within Nepal but also across borders.
Who is responsible when global emissions melt Himalayan ice? Who pays when villages flood or disappear?
As the climate crisis escalates, climate litigation in Nepal is no longer a question of “if,” but of “how” it can be harnessed to advance climate justice.
That is why Nepal needs to become a leader in climate litigation—because it may be the most effective tool to fight back against ill-conceived development that will only contribute to the destruction of our beloved planet.
Are Nepal’s political leaders confident enough to pursue unsustainable development paths that will not only tarnish the nation’s image as a global climate champion but also devastate its fragile ecosystems—and render them complicit in accelerating global warming?
Gautam is the Co-lead of World’s Youth for Climate Justice, Nepal, Galimberti is the Co-founder of The Good Leadership.
