Why in news?
In July 2025 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion in response to a request from several small island states. The court held that the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 remains legally valid and binding on states that accepted it, even though the Paris Agreement of 2015 introduced a new framework for global climate action. This ruling has reignited debate on historical responsibilities for climate change and the principle of equity in international law.
What was the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and adopted in 1997, entering into force in 2005. It was the first treaty to impose binding greenhouse‑gas reduction targets on industrialised nations, applying the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR‑RC). Two commitment periods—2008‑2012 and 2012‑2020—required developed countries to cut emissions relative to 1990 levels, provide climate finance and technology to developing nations, and operate mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism.
Why was it considered obsolete?
- The United States never ratified the treaty, and countries such as Canada and Japan withdrew or stopped complying, leaving fewer emitters subject to its targets.
- The Paris Agreement of 2015 replaced Kyoto’s top‑down binding targets with nationally determined contributions and a universal participation model, making Kyoto appear redundant.
- No third commitment period was agreed after 2020, and many assumed the protocol had lapsed in practice even though it was never formally revoked.
Significance of the ICJ ruling
- Legal continuity: The court clarified that the absence of a post‑2020 commitment period does not terminate Kyoto; it remains part of international climate law until formally replaced or withdrawn.
- Accountability for non‑compliance: Failure to meet Kyoto targets may constitute an internationally wrongful act, opening the door to state responsibility claims and diplomatic pressure.
- Retroactive scrutiny: Emissions during the first two commitment periods can be re‑evaluated, reviving discussions about the adequacy of developed‑country action.
- Expanded litigation: Though advisory, the opinion encourages civil society and vulnerable states to pursue legal avenues for stronger climate action and reaffirms the CBDR‑RC principle.
Implications for global climate governance
- The ruling underscores that treaties can coexist: the UNFCCC provides the framework, Kyoto imposes binding obligations on developed countries, and the Paris Agreement introduces universal, voluntary pledges. None replaces the other unless explicitly terminated.
- By reaffirming CBDR‑RC, the opinion renews focus on equity and historical responsibility, themes that have often been diluted under the Paris regime.
- Developed nations may face moral and legal pressure to ramp up finance, technology transfer and loss‑and‑damage support, especially for emissions during the Kyoto periods.
Challenges and the way forward
- US non‑ratification: The United States’ refusal to join Kyoto undermined the treaty’s effectiveness and set a precedent for other developed nations.
- Lack of enforcement: Kyoto had no punitive mechanisms, which made compliance largely voluntary and reliant on peer pressure.
- Overlaps with Paris: Voluntary national pledges under Paris risk undermining Kyoto’s legally binding obligations, creating uncertainty over which rules apply.
- Geopolitical tensions: Rivalries among major powers—particularly between the U.S. and China—could stall efforts to strengthen accountability mechanisms.
To make the most of the ruling, states could revive Kyoto’s monitoring arrangements to assess past obligations, enhance transparency under Paris by adopting rigorous reporting standards, and pursue a hybrid model that combines Kyoto’s legal accountability with Paris’s inclusivity. Strengthening climate jurisprudence through bodies like the ICJ and ensuring equitable finance and technology transfers between North and South will be crucial. Ultimately, the advisory opinion serves as a reminder that historical responsibilities and equity cannot be sidelined in the fight against climate change.