Authors: Mr. Mandip Paudel, Ms. Samriddhi Neupane & Ms. Anusha Lamichhane, second-year law students of the BEc-LL.B program

Introduction

Nepal, being a Land of the Himalayas and strong Geographic and Biodiversity, has been collateral damage in the climate change caused by the exploitation of the environment by others. Climate Change, despite countless attempts to disregard it, has been visible as a major global threat attracting the Nations, multinational organisations, and as International Civil Society. In 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took on one of the most pressing questions of our time: What are States’ legal obligations under international law to combat climate change and protect the rights of present and future generations? For a country like Nepal, perched atop the world and yet among its most climate-vulnerable, this was more than legal theory. It was survival.

As a co-sponsor of the historic UN General Assembly Resolution 77/276, Nepal endorsed the call for climate justice and submitted a powerful legal argument of its own to the ICJ. In its written statement, Nepal drew the focus on its unique geography, minimal contribution to global emissions, and outsized vulnerability to climate-induced disasters. But it’s important to scrutinise how well this submission aligns with Nepal’s domestic commitments. And we should discuss how Nepal might strategically use the forthcoming ICJ opinion to pursue stronger climate action at home.

This blog explores Nepal’s legal position before the ICJ, its standings on the global stage, & its status at home and argues that the advisory opinion could become a catalytic tool for domestic policy, law, and climate resilience. By examining the international legal obligations and domestic policy instruments, this writing tells how Nepal can lead by example in forging a just, inclusive, and sustainable future.

The Nepal Situation: Climate Crisis on a Mountain Front

Nepal is one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. Its glacial Himalayas are rapidly losing ice, and extreme events (glacial lake outbursts, floods, landslides, erratic monsoons) have become frequent. Nepal has repeatedly emphasised that it has contributed virtually nothing to the problem (only ~0.027% of global emissions), yet is “disproportionately” and “differentially” affected by climate harm. 

The observed climate impacts across Nepal are multifaceted and severe, directly threatening the nation’s natural resources, food security, economy, and energy infrastructure. Annual precipitation is declining in most high mountain districts, leading to a critical reduction in snowmelt runoff from non-glaciated areas, fueling a surge in meltwater, and triggering devastating glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), such as those in the Bhote Koshi River (2016) and the Melamchi River basin (2021). Climate change has also exacerbated the risk of erratic monsoons, leading to more frequent and intense floods and landslides that regularly endanger and displace communities. 

Nepal’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP 2021 to 2050) and Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 2020) also shed light on this vulnerability. They prioritise adaptation like protecting water resources, ensuring food security, and safeguarding biodiversity. Climate justice, in the Nepali context, is inseparable from basic human development.

A Legal Plea for Justice: Nepal to the ICJ

The urgency of Nepal’s climate vulnerability underpins its submission to the International Court of Justice, where it presents itself not just as a victim but as a principled advocate for equity, global accountability, and differentiated responsibilities. Climate change poses direct threats to Nepal’s natural resources, food systems, economy, and energy infrastructure. Declining precipitation in high mountain regions has reduced snowmelt runoff, increased meltwater, and triggered glacial lake outburst floods, notably in the Bhote Koshi (2016) and Melamchi (2021) rivers. Erratic monsoons now bring more frequent floods and landslides, endangering communities.

Agriculture, central to Nepal’s economy and food security, is struggling. Nearly half of all households are food insecure, and 14 percent are undernourished. Yields are falling due to rising temperatures, irregular rainfall, droughts, and floods. As an LDC, Nepal faces severe economic losses. The World Bank reports that climate change is already slowing GDP growth in key sectors like agriculture, energy, and tourism. Floods in 2021 alone caused losses of around USD 584.7 million, close to 3 percent of GDP. Even mitigation efforts come at a cost, with electric vehicle tax concessions leading to revenue losses of USD 264 million in 2024. Hydropower, which supplies 90 percent of electricity, remains highly exposed to glacial melt, changing rainfall, and landslide risks.

Nepal’s submission to the ICJ is grounded in its negligible emissions, just 0.027% in 2016, and the severe climate impacts it faces. It argues that mountainous countries like Nepal should be treated as “specially affected” states, akin to SIDS, deserving of focused international support. The economic strain from both climate damage and mitigation highlights that developed states’ duty of assistance must cover not just compensation, but also transition costs.

Legally, Nepal maintains that the UN General Assembly has the complete authority to seek an advisory opinion and that the ICJ has jurisdiction. The inquiries presented are legal in nature, and Nepal contends that there is no justifiable basis for the Court to refuse. Rather, the opinion would bolster international climate efforts by delivering definitive legal clarity. In its submission to the ICJ, Nepal framed the Court’s questions as inherently demanding a justice-centred and differential approach. It argued that some States must do more because they have historically done more to cause the problem.

Nepal invoked multiple legal sources:

• Paris Agreement (Article 2a): The duty to limit global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius,” ideally 1.5 degrees.

• Human Rights Law: The obligation to prevent climate harms that undermine rights to life, health, housing, and food.

• Customary International Law: The duty of States to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm.

• State Responsibility Principles: The idea that States are responsible for wrongful acts requires them to provide reparations.

The submission explicitly discussed the moral and legal obligations of high-emitting countries to assist vulnerable nations.  The Government of Nepal could use the advisory to justify new laws or regulations. For example, the parliament might pass a dedicated Climate Change Act that enshrines commitments to the AO’s standards (e.g., binding targets, mandatory climate risk assessment in policies, or creation of a national climate commission). Existing laws could be amended: Nepal’s Environment Protection Act could incorporate climate-specific duties, and building codes could be updated to require climate resilience. 

Nepal’s Domestic Commitments: Ambition and Limitations

Nepal’s domestic climate policy framework is impressive in its aspirations. The Second NDC aims for net-zero emissions by 2050, achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and sets sector-specific targets such as raising forest cover to 45 percent and implementing 2000 megawatts of solar energy. The NAP, on the other hand, details 64 essential adaptation programs and predicts a requirement of over 47 billion USD for adaptation funding by 2050.

Legally, Nepal’s 2015 Constitution enshrines the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. The Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Climate Change Policy of the same year articulate the government’s duty to build resilience, foster inclusive development, and promote intergenerational justice.

Despite this strong framework, budgetary allocations for climate adaptation are inadequate, and institutional fragmentation and coordination issues exist. Furthermore, while the legal commitments are strong on paper, they are often not translated into enforceable obligations at the operational level. Nepal’s submission to the ICJ could have drawn on these domestic instruments to show a consistency between its global advocacy and national practice. Referencing its constitutionally protected environmental rights and its long-term strategies would have added credibility and reinforced its moral authority. 

Legal Consequences for Acts or Omissions

With the legal repercussions of actions or inactions, Nepal refers to the “no significant harm” principle, a customary rule in international law that requires states to avert transboundary environmental damage. To establish such harm, it is necessary to demonstrate a physical link and a causal connection between the activity and its negative impact. The text also emphasises procedural obligations such as conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and providing notifications and consultations in situations where there may be adverse environmental effects, which are recognised as customary international law. If the substantive “no significant harm” principle is violated, and a causal link to a state’s actions is established, there are legal repercussions. The ITLOS advisory opinion further clarified that states are obligated to prevent “transboundary harm” and must exercise strict “due diligence.”

The polluter-pays principle and carbon offsetting mechanisms, established under the Kyoto Protocol, imply a legal obligation to pay for environmental damages. The recent establishment of the Loss and Damage fund at COP28 further reinforces this obligation. Nepal explicitly links historical emissions to a duty to compensate, framing the inaction of high emitters as an “internationally wrongful act”. It emphatically asserts that the UNFCCC’s Loss and Damage fund should be regarded as “compensation emanating out of a State’s internationally wrongful act,” rather than “voluntary charity”. This assertion aligns with the “polluter-pays principle”. This represents a fundamental re-framing of the discourse around climate finance and reparations. By grounding loss and damage in the concept of an “internationally wrongful act”, Nepal and other vulnerable states seek to establish a clear legal basis for compensation. Such a redefinition could significantly strengthen the legal standing of future claims for climate reparations and fundamentally alter the obligations of major emitters beyond mere mitigation and adaptation support. Legal consequences for internationally wrongful conduct can include the cessation of harmful conduct, guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparations, encompassing compensation, restitution, and satisfaction. 

Gaps and Limitations in Nepal’s Position

Although Nepal’s ICJ submission powerfully addressed international obligations, it said little about its climate actions. Climate justice requires not only demanding more from others, but also doing what is possible at home.

The submission could have:

• Cited its domestic constitutional provisions as a foundation for international legal alignment.
• Mentioned the quantifiable adaptation targets in the NAP and NDC.
• Highlighted specific vulnerabilities of sectors such as agriculture and hydropower.
• Explicitly named intergenerational equity as a core legal principle.

Moreover, the submission missed a chance to press for legal obligations around adaptation, technology transfer, and finance, especially in the context of Least Developed Countries like Nepal. It also did not leverage its regional voice as a Himalayan state facing climate-induced glacial retreat.

A Brief Reflection

The focus on intergenerational fairness, consistently emphasised by Nepal in its submission and crucial to the wider debates regarding the advisory opinion, highlights a significant moral responsibility. It urges present generations to act with care and anticipation, protecting the planet’s ecological stability and resource availability for future inheritors. This principle insists that climate action should not only be viewed as an immediate issue but as a sustained dedication to justice that transcends time.

Domestically, the ICJ’s opinion offers substantial leverage for judicial action. Nepal’s Supreme Court and lower courts could invoke the advisory opinion to provide substantive force to Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees the “right to a clean and healthy environment”. This could significantly strengthen public interest litigation concerning issues such as deforestation, pollution, and failures in climate adaptation efforts, providing an authoritative reference for interpreting environmental rights in future legal proceedings. Nepali judges, drawing on the Court’s likely affirmation of extraterritorial obligations and intergenerational duties, could interpret Article 30 in a manner that mandates stronger climate safeguards. This highlights a “ripple effect” where authoritative international legal interpretations, even if non-binding, can profoundly influence domestic legal systems. For a country like Nepal, with a constitutional right to a healthy environment, the ICJ’s clarity on state obligations and human rights in the climate context provides a powerful interpretive lens for national courts. This empowerment of citizens and non-governmental organisations to pursue stronger climate litigation domestically effectively translates global legal principles into local accountability mechanisms.

In the realm of legislative and regulatory reform, the Government of Nepal could strategically utilise the advisory opinion to justify the enactment of a comprehensive climate change statute that directly reflects the ICJ’s findings. Existing legal frameworks, such as the Environment Protection Act, could be amended to incorporate binding obligations derived from the opinion, ensuring their alignment with international legal interpretations. Furthermore, the opinion could provide the impetus for mandating robust risk assessment and climate impact review procedures across all government sectors, embedding climate considerations into policy-making at a fundamental level.

For policy enhancement, particularly concerning updates to Nepal’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plan (NAP), the advisory’s findings can serve as direct guidance. If the ICJ emphasises specific mitigation obligations or reinforces the 1.5°C temperature benchmark, Nepal could leverage this to raise its ambition in subsequent NDC updates, potentially setting earlier net-zero dates or more aggressive sectoral targets. Similarly, if the Court highlights the imperative of protecting vulnerable populations, Nepal could justify increased investment in gender-responsive climate actions or initiatives supporting indigenous land rights within its NAP. Crucially, the government can cite the advisory opinion when seeking climate finance from developed nations, framing stronger support as an international obligation of donor countries rather than a discretionary act of charity.

On the global stage, the advisory opinion will significantly strengthen Nepal’s voice in international diplomacy and advocacy. As a nation disproportionately “bearing the brunt” of climate change despite its minimal historical contribution, Nepal can powerfully invoke the ICJ’s conclusions to press for higher contributions to the Loss & Damage Fund, facilitate easier access to climate grants, and accelerate technology transfer. The opinion may also embolden coalitions of developing countries, including LDCs, mountainous nations, and SIDS, to collectively demand systemic reforms, such as the establishment of a comprehensive treaty on climate compensation. Nepal’s negotiators can repeatedly reference the opinion in UN discussions, serving as a constant reminder to bigger emitters of their legal and moral duties. This highlights a sophisticated understanding of how authoritative interpretations, even if non-binding, can be wielded as significant diplomatic leverage. The ICJ’s opinion, backed by universal UNGA consensus, provides a powerful legal and moral backing for vulnerable nations like Nepal in bilateral and multilateral negotiations. It transforms their pleas from moral arguments into legally informed demands, potentially shifting the power dynamics in climate finance and loss and damage discussions by framing assistance as an obligation rather than a voluntary contribution.

Conclusion

Nepal’s appeal to the ICJ exemplifies the influence small and vulnerable nations can have on the development of global climate law. It embodies a clear moral vision, sound legal reasoning, and a dedication to justice. However, to make a real impact, this advocacy needs to be reflected domestically. The ICJ’s advisory opinion has the potential to be more than just a legal reference. For Nepal, it could serve as a national framework that can be a basis for more robust legislation, enhanced policy integration, and improved international cooperation. 

As a nation that plays a minimal role in contributing to climate change but endures its severe consequences, Nepal is in a prime position to transform law into proactive leadership. From the heights of the Himalayas to the chambers of the ICJ, its message is unmistakable: climate justice is imperative, not a choice.