Context

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion affirming that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) remains legally valid even after the adoption of the Paris Agreement (2015), reigniting debate on climate accountability and historical emissions.

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

• Adopted: 1997 | Came into force: 2005
• Under: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
• Purpose: Legally binding emission reduction targets for developed (Annex-I) countries
• Core Principle: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC)
• Commitment Periods:
  • 1st: 2008–2012
  • 2nd: 2013–2020
• Key Features:
  • Emission targets from 1990 baseline
  • Financial & technological support to developing countries
  • Created mechanisms like Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Why Was Kyoto Considered Obsolete?

• Paris Agreement (2015): Introduced voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), shifting away from Kyoto’s binding targets
• Lack of Global Compliance:
  • US never ratified Kyoto
  • Canada, Japan exited or stopped fulfilling targets
• No 3rd Commitment Period Post-2020
• Seen as replaced by the more inclusive Paris framework

Significance of the ICJ Ruling

• Legal Continuity Restored: Kyoto remains part of international climate law despite lack of recent targets
• States May Be Held Liable: Non-compliance can now be seen as a violation of international obligations
• Retroactive Review Enabled: Earlier emission targets may be reassessed for compliance
• Boost to Climate Litigation: Although advisory, the ruling strengthens legal arguments in global courts and tribunals

Implications for Global Climate Governance

• Reinforces treaty coexistence – Kyoto and Paris are complementary, not exclusive
• Revives CBDR–RC, often diluted under Paris’ universal approach
• Increases pressure on developed nations over historical emissions and equity

Key Challenges

• No Penalty Mechanism: Kyoto lacked enforcement tools
• US Non-Ratification: Weakens collective adherence
•  Paris-Kyoto Tension: Voluntary nature of Paris undercuts Kyoto’s binding accountability
• Geopolitical Divides: US–China climate rivalry slows consensus

Way Forward

1. Monitor Kyoto Compliance: Reassess targets from past periods
2. Enhance Paris Transparency: Use Kyoto-like reporting for NDCs
3. Build Climate Jurisprudence: Leverage ICJ and other legal bodies for clarity and enforcement
4. Revive North–South Equity: Prioritise finance and tech transfer aligned with CBDR
5. Create a Hybrid Framework: Blend Kyoto’s binding commitments with Paris’ flexibility

Conclusion

The ICJ’s ruling reinstates the Kyoto Protocol as a living legal instrument, placing renewed moral and legal responsibility on developed countries. It underscores that historical accountability, equity, and international law remain central to any credible global climate regime.

Source: Indian Express