From the Himalayas to The Hague: Nepal’s Position in the ICJ Advisory Opinion and Its Impact on Future Climate Action
‘What is happening in Nepal as a result of climate change is a searing indictment of the fossil fuel age. Nepal is a friend of the world. So, the world must be a better friend to Nepal. And the United Nations will never stop fighting to make that a reality.’
-UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Remarks at the Nepalese Parliament, 2023
Secretary-General António Guterres (second from left) addresses a joint session of the Parliament of Nepal in Kathmandu. In the centre of the podium are Ganesh Prasad Timilsina, Speaker of Upper House (right) and Dev Raj Ghimire (left), Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament of Nepal in Kathmandu.
Nepal, contributing only about 0.027 per cent of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, faces severe climate change consequences due to its geographic vulnerability as a mountainous nation and its limited financial and technical resources, which significantly hinder adaptation efforts. This disparity highlights a profound inequity, where those least responsible for the crisis bear its harshest impacts. While international climate frameworks uphold the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, assigning greater accountability to developed nations for their historical emissions and economic capacity, affluent industrialised States have largely failed to meet these obligations. As a result, low-emission, high-risk countries like Nepal and other South Asian nations remain disproportionately exposed. Climate finance remains inadequate, and loss and damage funding has been largely aspirational. Without sustained international pressure, powerful States continue to evade responsibility, exacerbating the vulnerability of climate-affected nations.
To legally clarify State obligations, the UN General Assembly, led by Vanuatu and climate-vulnerable States, sought an International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (hereinafter “the AO”) in March 2023. While advisory in nature, it holds significant legal and political weight, influencing climate litigation, treaty negotiations, and accountability demands worldwide.
Nepal made its first appearance before the ICJ in these proceedings, initially submitting a written statement. Subsequently, on December 9, 2024, during the oral hearings, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, with her team, presented Nepal’s arguments, underscoring the nation’s disproportionate climate-induced hardships—glacial retreat, lake outbursts, and loss of livelihoods—directly attributable to the emissions of high-emitting States. In her statement, she asserted, “We are being penalized for mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”
Members of the Delegation of Nepal Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
Through its written submission, Nepal first affirms the ICJ’s jurisdiction to provide the AO and emphasises the necessity of exercising this jurisdiction given the urgency of climate change. Second, Nepal argues that international human rights law is central to determining State obligations, as climate change severely threatens fundamental rights, including life, health, food, water, and shelter. Then, it asserts that States have a duty of due diligence to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm. Failure to fulfil these obligations constitutes State responsibility under the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). Nepal specifically highlights its mountainous geography and heightened vulnerability, emphasising the CBDR-RC principle to assert that high-emission States must bear a greater share of mitigation and adaptation costs. It underscores the obligation of developed nations to provide adequate climate finance and technical support while calling for binding commitments to ensure sufficient funding for loss and damage. Nepal further argues that States breaching their obligations must cease harmful actions, guarantee non-repetition, and provide full reparation—including restitution and compensation—for the irreversible environmental harm inflicted on least-developed and climate-vulnerable nations. The AO, highly anticipated in the latter half of 2025, is poised to significantly influence transnational climate litigation. It may delineate the legal obligations of developed nations to mitigate climate impacts, provide support to vulnerable States, and safeguard human rights. Further, it could establish precedents for corporate accountability in climate matters and adjudicate disputes involving mountain water resources, trade, and environmental damage. States will be expected to implement the ICJ recommendations, thereby enhancing global climate governance and promoting international cooperation. In the context of Nepal, the AO could shape domestic climate litigation by bolstering legal arguments, informing constitutional interpretations, and catalysing policy reforms.
HE Ms Arzu Rana Deuba, PhD, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Nepal). Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
Nepal has already incorporated international climate obligations into its domestic legal framework, as evidenced by the Constitution, the Environment Protection Act 2019, and the National Climate Change Policy 2019, which emphasise sustainability and the protection of vulnerable populations, including women and Indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, substantial deficiencies persist. The Local Government Operation Act 2017 imposes environmental protection duties but fails to include explicit climate change mandates, thereby impeding effective action at provincial and municipal levels. This ambiguity obstructs the local execution of national climate objectives, such as those enshrined in the Paris Agreement and Nepal’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) 2020. The AO may help address these gaps by providing an authoritative legal interpretation of State obligations under international climate law, thereby putting normative pressure on Nepal to align its domestic legislation with global standards, precipitating reforms to explicitly mandate climate action across all levels of government. A definitive affirmation of developed nations’ obligations under Article 9(1) of the Paris Agreement could strengthen Nepal’s claims for climate finance for adaptation and mitigation measures and compensation for loss and damage. Should the ICJ underscore the “no-harm” principle or transboundary environmental responsibilities, Nepal may integrate these principles into its legal framework, thereby strengthening environmental impact assessments and disaster risk planning.
Second, the AO could reinforce the judiciary’s role in advancing environmental protection within Nepal. This is exemplified by a series of landmark judicial decisions. In the 1992 Godavari Marble case, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life under the 1990 Constitution as encompassing the right to a clean environment, establishing a foundational precedent in Nepal. Subsequently, in a 2017 petition, Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha v. Prime Minister and Office of Council of Ministers and Others, demanding climate-specific legislation, the Supreme Court compelled the government to implement the 2010 Climate Change Policy. Instead of enacting a separate Climate Change Act as directed by the Court, the government incorporated climate mitigation and environmental harm compensation provisions under a distinct “climate change” heading within the revised Environment Protection Act, 2019. Thereafter, in Khagendra Subedi v. Government of Nepal, the Court affirmed the present generation’s obligation to preserve natural and cultural heritage, forests, climate, environment, and biodiversity for future generations, anchoring its decision in the principle of intergenerational equity. The AO could further empower the judiciary to build upon this jurisprudence, strengthening its authority to enforce climate-related obligations and drive systemic environmental reforms. Notably, Nepali courts have previously shown a willingness to align with evolving international norms in the above cases, often referring to global environmental standards and instruments like the Paris Agreement and the ICESCR 1966. Should the ICJ affirm binding State obligations to address climate change, Nepali litigants could leverage this ruling to hold both governmental and private entities accountable for fulfilling environmental commitments, as the decision might shed light on incorporating provisions for climate mitigation and compensation for environmental harm.
Third, the AO could amplify Nepal’s regional and global influence in climate litigation while exposing persistent enforcement challenges. Nepal’s submission to the ICJ serves as a critical template for South Asia, particularly as many neighbouring States with comparable geographical and socio-economic conditions—such as Bhutan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Myanmar—did not provide submissions. Scientifically, Nepal underscores the Himalayas’ role as a vital heatsink, sustaining ecosystems, biodiversity, and downstream communities while linking mountain health to oceanic stability. This broadens the AO’s scope beyond small island developing States (SIDS), ensuring vulnerable terrains like Nepal’s are not overlooked, and urges the ICJ to adopt a holistic approach to climate impacts worldwide.
Mr Udaya Raj Sapkota, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Nepal). Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
Politically, an authoritative ICJ ruling could empower South Asian citizens to hold governments accountable, though resistance from some states is likely. While Pakistan’s Climate Change Act 2017 and the Maldives’ Climate Emergency Act 2021 mark legislative progress, most South Asian nations rely on policies rather than dedicated climate laws. Judicial activism has filled this gap: in Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015), the Lahore High Court ruled that governmental delays in implementing climate policies breached constitutional rights, integrating principles like sustainable development and intergenerational equity to oversee State action. Similarly, a recent petition in India’s Delhi High Court, Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India sought enforcement of Paris Agreement commitments. Nepal’s judiciary could leverage the AO to align with this trend, building on cases like Padam Bahadur Shrestha and Khagendra Subedi.
However, Nepal’s capacity to enforce international standards hinges on judicial and political will. The Local Government Operation Act 2017’s lack of climate mandates exemplifies systemic gaps, while the failure of COP29 to secure loss and damage financing underscores global inequities affecting nations like Nepal. Globally, civil society drives climate justice—as seen in Juliana v. United States, Italy’s 2023 lawsuit against ENI, and the World’s Youth for Climate Justice campaign. Nepal’s alignment with these efforts, bolstered by its 2018 Supreme Court ruling on government inaction, highlights the role of activism and judicial oversight. A robust ICJ opinion could galvanise Nepal’s courts, advocates, and civil society to demand accountability, though effective implementation remains contingent on overcoming domestic resistance and resource constraints.
Mr Suvanga Parajuli, Under‑Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nepal) Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
To sum up, as one of the 130+ co-sponsors of the UN resolution that brought the issue before the World Court, Nepal helped ensure that the voices of climate-vulnerable countries resonated in The Hague. The Himalayas, like the Pacific’s small island States, have now become the front line of the climate crisis. Nepal’s engagement with the ICJ has spotlighted both its vulnerabilities and its leadership. The key takeaways are clear; first, it puts a human face on climate change and emphasises equity and historical responsibility. Second, it reinforces the principle that those who have contributed least to the problems should not bear their heaviest burdens. Moving forward, Nepal’s advocacy should continue with its South Asian neighbours and other developing nations to share knowledge, coordinate climate efforts, and present a united front at forums like the UNFCCC Conference of Parties. The ICJ Advisory Opinion is not an end in itself but a springboard from which concrete actions and cooperative initiatives must rise higher.
