The entrance of mankind into the age of irreversible climate impacts have made them arrive to the realization that global justice must now climb to meet the needs of those who did not cause the crisis yet are paying its heaviest price not as charity, but as a matter of international obligation.
The snow-capped crest of the Himalayas stood behind Nepal’s call for justice as the country joined more than 130 states to seek an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change – a moment proclaimed as a milestone in global environmental law.
Nepal made a strong and emotional plea for climate justice during its oral submissions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on December 9, 2024. Leading the statement, Minister for Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba addressed the Court, emphasizing that Nepal is suffering disproportionate impacts from a climate crisis it did not create. “We are paying for a bad ‘karma’ we did not create,” she said, highlighting melting mountains, vanishing glacial lakes, and destructive monsoons and landslides that are devastating lives and livelihoods across the country. (The Nepal Weekly, 2024).
Udaya Raj Sapkota, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, presented the legal arguments for Nepal. He reiterated the obligation of states to exercise due diligence to avoid transboundary harm as a principle settled in international law and called for acknowledging differentiated obligations under climate agreements, especially regarding landlocked and mountainous countries such as Nepal. He contends that Nepal’s economic limitations and environmental susceptibility need to be taken into consideration in the allocation of global climate responsibilities. (Kathmandu Post 2024.)
Suvanga Parajuli, Under Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, delivered Nepal’s final oral submission. She challenged the idea that climate change is merely a “collective tragedy,” instead asserting that developed countries bear a collective responsibility to compensate for the harms caused by their historic emissions. She emphasized that State obligations regarding climate change are legal, not aspirational, and failure to act must carry consequences under international law. (UN Web TV, 2024).
Nepal is on the verge of experiencing the worst climate change impacts – from the dissolving ice of the Himalayas, retreating glaciers, to the disastrous landslides and floods. Nepal has near-zero contribution to global emissions (Nepal NDC3, 2025), despite of which, its geographical and developmental status makes it acutely vulnerable. According to ICIMOD, climate impacts have increasingly destroyed farming, displaced communities, and threatened the Indigenous and marginalized populations. (ICIMOD, 2024)
Nepal’s Stance on Climate Justice and Loss and Damage
Nepal, based on its statement to the International Court of Justice (Govt. of Nepal, ICJ Submission, 2024) argued it is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries due to its geography, underdevelopment, and fragile mountain ecosystems, despite contributing only 0.027% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The given statement clearly describes how elevation-dependent warming (EDW) leads to a faster warming in Nepal’s Himalayas, reduced snowfall, glacial lake outburst floods, (GLOFs), and water insecurity.
Acknowledging this, Nepal has formulated the progressive climate policies, including its National Climate Change Policy and National Adaptation Plan. However, addressing the irreversible harms, or the “loss and damage,” requires international cooperation and legal clarity. The ICJ advisory opinion initiated by Vanuatu, to define clear obligations of the states regarding climate change, offers Nepal an opportunity to align the global principles with its domestic struggle for climate justice. Here, Nepal’s engagement at the ICJ is not only timely, but vital – signaling a move from victimhood to leadership in global climate law.
One of the essential areas that Nepal is seeking global assistance in is loss and damage, the irreversible impacts of climate change that adaptation and mitigation cannot address. Nepal has consistently advocated for the establishment and functioning of a stand-alone Loss and Damage Fund, calling on historically high-emitting nations to commit adequate, predictable, and accessible financial resources. This is critical for communities that suffer from glacial lake outburst floods, displacement, crop and culture loss. Understanding that these effects largely fall on Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups, Nepal urges the ICJ to determine the question of state obligations to provide reparative justice for such damages.
Mountain Diplomacy and Legal Innovations
The Sagarmatha Sambad, is Nepal’s premier global dialogue platform that brings together national and international voices to discuss urgent global challenges from a Himalayan perspective. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, during the session, put forward a compelling address of the critical significance of the mountain ecosystems in the global climate disclosure. “Mountains may seem far away, but their breath keeps the world alive.” He highlighted how protecting the mountains is essential not only for the preservation of the Himalayas but also for the well-being of the entire planet.
He stressed how mountains here are not just the landscapes, they are a lifeline to living beings and sacred. The dialogue within the Sagarmatha Sambad aims to tackle the biggest challenge of our times – climate change, mountains and the future of humanity, and touches upon the necessity of preserving the $1.5^{\circ}$ Celsius ambition to save our glaciers. PM Oli guarantees food security and resilient agriculture by empowering local climate actions in the mountain, and opportunities of green economy. The session echoed – one, diplomatic and the other, judicial – reflecting Nepal’s unified stance: that climate justice is not a matter of charity, but of shared survival and international obligation.
Along with the fight Nepal is having with the climate change risks, it must also explore possible legal innovations that empower nature and communities to defend themselves. The Colombian Constitutional Court’s recognition of the Amazon as a legal person (Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others) provides a reasonable opportunity for Nepal to declare the Himalayan cryosphere a living entity with inherent rights to exist and regenerate where guardian council composed of scientists e.g., ICIMOD and indigenous leaders (e.g., Sherpa, Thakali) can act as legal stewards. This model not only protects ecology but elevates indigenous systems like Kipat (community-based land stewardship) into the legal mainstream as forms of adaptive infrastructure in the same way the New Zealand declared their Whanganui River as a legal person with guardians appointed from Indigenous Maori People (eco jurisprudence monitor.org) and how India declared Ganga and Yamuna rivers as legal entities, allowing litigation in their name.
International Legal Frameworks and National Precedents
Nepal had actively argued that the cause of violation of International Human Rights Laws is the climate inaction itself. It is the legal duty of the state to limit warming to $1.5$ degrees, not merely as a moral goal but as a legal necessity for protection of these rights. (Govt. of Nepal. LT-LEDS, 2023). Moreover, Nepal has cited the duty of assistance, arguing that developed nations have a legal obligation under the Paris Agreement and other instruments to provide financial and technical support to vulnerable nations especially mountainous and least developed nations. This in turn justifies why international and internationalized decisions (like the ICJ advisory opinion) must not only go as far as advice but call for enforceable obligations, particularly funding loss and damage. Nepal presented clear submissions on the necessity of inclusive climate justice, focusing on the disproportionate impacts of climate change on: Women (as per CEDAW), Indigenous peoples (ILO 169), Persons with disabilities (CRPD), Future generations (intergenerational equity principle).
Nepal has also emphasized key legal principles to support its case: that States have a customary international law obligation not to cause environmental harm beyond their borders, (Zahar, 2021), where developed countries bear a higher burden in mitigating climate change and supporting vulnerable nations. (DGAP.n.d.) Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy states are required to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries for adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage (UNFCCC, 2015) and that climate inaction violates fundamental rights including the rights to life, health, water, and housing particularly in least developed and landlocked mountain nations like Nepal. (OHCHR, 2019)
National Judicial Support and Policy Integration
National courts also supported the story of climate justice. In Amlekhgunj Pesticide Storage Case (Raju Prasad Chapagain v. Government of Nepal, Writ No. 2959/2062), the Supreme Court of Nepal held that the historical government failure to eliminate toxic pesticides stored in Amlekhgunj violated the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. The judgment invoked the principle of intragenerational equity, which emphasizes that environmental gains and harms must be distributed fairly among current populations, especially the most vulnerable. In this case, the Court clearly stated “the right to a clean and healthy environment must be ensured equitably within the current generation, not only for future generations. This idea is known as intragenerational equity. The Court highlighted that marginalized groups and poorer communities often bear the greatest burden of environmental harm, while enjoying the least benefits of development. Therefore, sustainable development policies must prioritize fair distribution of environmental goods and harms among all people of the present generation.” In this context, the Court stressed that development and environmental policies must be inclusive, just, and equitable, and must ensure participation and representation of affected communities. It directed the concerned authorities to consider the social dimensions of environmental decisions, and to implement projects only after assessing their impact on local and vulnerable populations.
In the case of Prakash Mani Sharma v. Government of Nepal, Supreme Court, 1999, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is not only the responsibility of industrial and business entities but of everybody and every institution, including the State and the general public, to protect the environment. The Court recognized that natural resources like air, water, and forests are inter-linked and essential for ecological balance. Special emphasis was laid on the avoidance of the disproportionate environmental burden to vulnerable communities, laying stress on intragenerational equity.
These arguments suggest a broader trend in climate law: a shift away from soft law principles towards binding obligations, especially when interpreted through the lens of human rights and environmental conventions. If the ICJ advisory opinion confirms that such principles as intragenerational equity have legal significance under international law, this would reinforce Nepal’s case both at the national and international levels of claims on loss and damage – not just as moral obligations, but as legally enforceable obligations.
Global Solidarity and Youth Leadership
Nepal has actively participated in the ICJ process which has prompted new thinking among public institutions. A high-level task force under the Environment Protection and Climate Change Management National Council is reviewing policies to better integrate climate justice, loss and damage, and rights-based approaches. Nepal is also working to promulgate a team of permanent climate negotiation to improve its effectiveness in international diplomacy.
In this multilateral setting, the SAARC Declaration on Climate Change (2007) is an important early regional gesture of unity. It acknowledged the disproportionate climate dangers of South Asian countries particularly the low-lying and Himalayan regions – and called for fair burden-sharing, adequate climate funds, and binding emissions reduction promises by developed nations. (SAARC Declaration, 2007). The declaration addresses Nepal’s advocacy at the ICJ by framing climate change as a development and human rights issue that must be addressed collectively and fairly.
International courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) are shaping the law of climate change at the international level. Nepal’s recourse to the ICJ is in line with this global trend of appealing to judicial forum to seek clarification and justice. If the ICJ were to find that states have binding obligations not to cause climate harm and to repair it, it would validate such efforts in other jurisdictions and further legitimize Nepal’s global campaign.
Youth Voices and A Call for Justice
To the youth of Nepal and to the larger South Asian public, climate justice is not an abstract legal concept far removed from life it is a cry for survival. Glacial melting, erratic monsoons, and landslides have become a generation’s trauma for mountain communities. While their ancestral homelands disappear and farming becomes unsustainable, the youth are standing up to assert their rights.
Youth voices have dominated the voice of climate activism in South Asia. From school walks in Kathmandu to youth initiated dialogue in Vanuatu and the Pacific, the climate justice movement has increasingly been led by a generation that will bear the consequences of today’s choices. The ICJ advisory opinion gives youth a weapon of legitimacy to compel governments and the global community to do something real.
In a continent polarized by boundaries but bound together by weakness, the leadership of Nepal can weave together collective resilience. The hills are indifferent to political boundaries – and the same goes for climate solutions. As Nepal and young people grasp the opportunity to tap into the power of law, diplomacy, and inclusive governance, they can reimagine climate leadership of the Himalayas and the world.
Nepal’s engagement in the ICJ advisory opinion process is a turning point in its climate diplomacy. Through linking international legal frameworks to internal realities, Nepal is making sure that loss and damage is a matter of legal responsibility and not an act of charity. Through policy adjustment, mountain diplomacy, and youth mobilization, the country is making a multi-dimensional argument for justice.
What we hope to see is clear: a world where national policies, global courts, and climate justice work in concert to ensure that the suffering of marginalized people is met with accountability, support, and systemic change. Nepal’s leadership can turn the suffering of the Himalayas into a call for global solidarity born of law, rights, and justice and actually get closer to the mountain vision it always advocated for.
Authors
Prapti Niraula
Garima Mishra
Aarya Ghimire