Shaping the Future of Climate Justice: Sri Lanka's Perspective on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
Members of the Delegation of Sri Lanka. Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
“We have entered an era of international law in which international law subserves not only the interests of individual States, but looks beyond them and their parochial concerns to the greater interests of humanity and planetary welfare.”
-Justice C. G. Weeramantry
(Separate Opinion on the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997)
The vision of one of Sri Lanka’s greatest legal minds echoed profoundly in the small island nation’s written and oral submissions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in support of a globally urgent request for an advisory opinion on climate change. Joining 132 other countries in advocating for UNGA Resolution 77/276, Sri Lanka, represented by Attorney General Parindra Ranasinghe and Deputy Solicitor General Avanti Perera, presented its arguments before the world’s highest court on 11 December 2024. Key points pertaining to the island’s case for an advisory opinion on climate change in both its written and oral submissions were jurisdiction, admissibility, and climate change and its impacts. This blog post dives into the anatomy and essence of Sri Lanka’s submission to the ICJ, its position on key issues and what this means for South Asia’s climate governance landscape.
Island nations are particularly vulnerable to climate change, but not all island nations will feel the impacts of climate change the same way. It is no surprise, then, that an island nation was the first to begin the conversation on the possibility of obtaining an advisory opinion on the issue. Vanuatu sprang into action after placing first on the 2021 World Risk Index in terms of vulnerability to disaster, especially due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. Although Sri Lanka places 75th on this list, its reasons for urging the ICJ to construct an advisory opinion are situated within a periphery similar to that of Vanuatu. As small island nations with developing economies, deep reliance on agriculture, tourism, coastal and marine resources, respect for indigenous heritage and rich social and legal cultures, their message is clear: climate change is putting our survival at risk. We must act, and we must act now.
On the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, Sri Lanka’s stance is definite and in agreement with the majority consensus: under UN Charter Article 96(1) and ICJ Statute Article 65(1), the Court has jurisdiction to address two important questions pertaining to (a) the obligations of States under international law and (b) legal consequences under these obligations. Sri Lanka found the specificities of these questions to be ‘specific, clear and unambiguous,’ explaining that all members had unanimously adopted UNGA resolution 77/276 due to the clarity of the questions and urgency to answer them.
The most vital elements of Sri Lanka’s argument, however, lie in its discussion of climate change and its social and ecological impacts. Sri Lankan delegates drew the Court’s attention at the hearings to this point, supported by scientific evidence, news reports and the voices of their fellow citizens. The country’s experience with climate-related disasters was poignantly illustrated by its Deputy Solicitor General, who highlighted that Sri Lanka is currently ‘fighting a losing battle’ against climate change. What can be gathered is that Sri Lanka, like many other developing island nations, is struggling to gain the upper hand in this battle because of the complicated web of intersectional harms created by the climate crisis. The submissions suggest that climate-related disasters are on the brink of setting off a human rights crisis, presenting evidence that Sri Lankans’ rights to health, clean water, and livelihood have been threatened. The agricultural sector, coastal communities and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more susceptible to these harms than others.
Additionally, the submissions incorporated the evolving concept of ‘future generations’ as potential victims of climate disasters. Sri Lanka’s approach to ‘future generations’ is a unique one. Its origins can be traced back to two thousand years of Buddhist teachings that shaped its rulers’ governance. The Buddhist principle of refraining from harming others is now a tenet of the country’s environmental lawmaking and is commonly cited in landmark judgments. The submissions tied these ‘unique’ experiences of climate change together with ancient Buddhist teachings, inviting the Court to consider the fundamentals of legal cultures that have strong connections to such philosophies.
Hon. Parinda Ranasinghe Jnr, President’s Counsel, Attorney General (Sri Lanka) Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
Sri Lanka’s Position on Key Issues
In addressing the two questions raised by the ICJ, Sri Lanka’s submission aimed to underscore the legal obligations of States to address climate change, emphasising that these are not optional commitments but enforceable duties under international law. The country further argued that existing legal frameworks – such as international human rights law and environmental treaties – already establish State responsibilities to mitigate climate change and protect vulnerable populations.
A key element of Sri Lanka’s stance is the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), which asserts that industrialised nations bear a greater obligation to reduce emissions and provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries. In solidarity with many nations, Sri Lanka highlighted the disproportionate impact of climate change on small island nations despite their minimal contribution to global emissions. Notably, the supplementary evidence presented with the submissions reinforced that climate inaction by high-emitting States violates the fundamental rights of Sri Lankan citizens, including access to clean water, food security, and public health.
Sri Lanka’s support for the youth movements demanding climate justice was evident when the country called for legal clarity on intergenerational justice, arguing that climate change threatens future generations and that States have a duty to prevent long-term environmental harm. Additionally, by referencing its cultural and legal traditions, Sri Lanka’s submissions incorporated Buddhist principles that emphasise environmental stewardship, reminding that climate action is a legal necessity and a moral responsibility.
Broader Implications for South Asia’s Climate Governance Landscape
Sri Lanka’s focus on CBDR brought the plight of developing States to the forefront and drew attention to the fact that all States should capacitate themselves to drive the differentiated responsibility dimension of the argument forward. That is to say, if CBDR as a principle is to be positioned centrally to the climate justice argument, as Sri Lanka has done, all States must proactively align themselves with international frameworks and regional cooperative frameworks and develop domestic and regional legal regimes that allow them to confidently assert what exactly constitutes the differentiated responsibilities of the developed world. The now operationally defunct SAARC Framework on Climate Change, for example, has the potential to take the region’s climate governance landscape in the right direction, but it is hindered by political tensions among Member States. Revitalising this framework is a priority to create a unified South Asian approach to climate action.
Focusing on building this regional capacity today, in anticipation of a favourable ICJ opinion tomorrow, better positions the region for climate finance and other demands that would help the individual States themselves carry out their responsibilities. In this way, South Asian nations, many of which are highly dependent on external funding for climate adaptation, may leverage the ICJ’s opinion and a united regional front to demand the increased financial and technological support due from high-emitting countries.
Furthermore, the recognition of intergenerational equity, human rights, and climate action as a moral imperative in Sri Lanka’s arguments sets a precedent for State accountability across South Asia. Courts in Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, and Nepal have already begun integrating climate-related human rights principles into their rulings, and as a result, South Asia is a world leader in establishing legal precedents that touch on State responsibility for climate action. Pakistan’s landmark Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan case, for instance, successfully held the government accountable for failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). Other notable cases from the region include MK Ranjitsinh et al. v. Union of India et al. (India) and Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al. (Nepal). The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is currently deliberating SC FR 177/2022, a case that similarly challenges the State’s accountability for climate action, further reinforcing the region’s legal landscape.
Ms Avanti Perera, Deputy Solicitor General (Sri Lanka) Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
Conclusion
As demonstrated throughout this blog post, Sri Lanka’s submission to the ICJ underscored the burden placed on small island nations for their survival against the adverse impacts of climate change, hinting at an unpredictable future for their communities and entire nations, for a fault not of their own. It emphasised the responsibility of high-emitting nations, highlighting important legal principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities and intergenerational equity, which are critical in achieving climate justice for vulnerable populations and future generations. Ultimately, Sri Lanka urged the ICJ to clarify State obligations and strengthen the legal basis for future climate litigation and policy measures. Sri Lanka’s advocacy for stronger climate governance mechanisms showcased the critical role of a small island nation in the development of international law. A progressive advisory opinion by the ICJ would lead to a major breakthrough in environmental law, strengthening climate-related legal frameworks across South Asia and beyond.
