Some important developments in the realms of ecological crisis and international legislation have taken place at a time when the Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report has predicted that a liveable future for all is possible only if urgent action is taken globally. First, the European Parliament took a historic decision to recognise ‘ecocide’ — “any conduct causing severe and widespread, or severe and long-term, or severe and irreversible damage” to the environment — as a crime. This means that all members of the European Union will now have to include ecocide as a crime in their national legislation. This could facilitate international recognition of this transgression because EU members comprise more than 20% of the International Criminal Court. In a separate but related development, the United Nations General Assem­bly has asked the Inter­na­tional Court of Justice to weigh in on whether countries can be sued under international law for failing to avert climate emergencies.

These steps are heartening. But they also expose crucial gaps within the most seminal of international pacts pertaining to environmental challenges. The Paris pact, for instance, is not legally binding in its entirety. Signatories have to update their own emission goals regularly, but there are no legal penalties if a nation fails to meet its target. This dearth of a punitive element in international statutes on climate action is, in fact, a manifestation of the lack of accountability of stakeholders. The softness of the laws is a glaring act of omission on the part of the international fraternity given the dire predictions regarding the future of the planet. The lack of deterrents also stymies the creation of a level playing field. The United States of America, one of the biggest polluters, could walk away and then re-enter the Paris pact without being penalised for its flip-flop. A dedicated International Court for the Environment can put an end to such inconsistencies.

The UNGA’s request, in particular, mirrors the exasperation of the poorer economies and island countries, many of whom face an existential threat, with the tardiness of common mitigatory interventions. The Hague-based court’s opinion may not be binding — it should be the case — but its pronouncements carry moral weight. The advisory could set the stage for countries incorporating climate justice in their legal frameworks akin to the way the UN declaration of human rights found resonance in statute books across the world. The success of the Montreal Protocol of 1987 — the ozone layer is expected to return to pre-1980s levels by the middle of the century — is proof that accountability aided by sharper laws can bring about meaningful change. But no international tribunal can be created and given teeth without the consent of governments that would be subject to its jurisdiction. This consent remains elusive, if the existing international legal framework on climate is anything to go by.