ICJ climate opinion carries strong moral weight, experts tell Dhaka roundtable

The recent opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change, though not legally binding, carries strong moral obligations for states and could influence national and global climate policies, experts and civil society leaders said at a roundtable in Dhaka yesterday.

The discussion, jointly organised by the Human Safety Foundation (HSF) and BRAC University’s Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Research (C3ER), stressed that Bangladesh must seize the opportunity to strengthen its laws, diplomacy, and institutional preparedness in light of the ICJ’s findings.

Moral but not toothless

Delivering the keynote, Professor Emeritus Dr. Ainun Nishat, Adviser at BRAC University’s C3ER, noted that while the ICJ opinion is advisory, it can still reshape global climate responsibility. He urged policymakers to ensure climate policies prioritise children, women, youth, and people with disabilities.

Recalling the Kyoto Protocol’s binding obligations compared to the non-binding Paris Agreement, Nishat argued that states failing to meet their climate commitments should be held accountable.

Dr. Manjurul Hannan Khan, Founder of NACOM, said the opinion may lack enforceability but will serve as a political reference point in global climate debates. Victims of climate displacement or rights violations may also use it in national or international claims, he added.

Kazi Emdadul Haque, Senior Director at Friendship, called for a dedicated Climate Justice Desk at Bangladesh’s Environment or Foreign Ministry to escalate complaints internationally. He also urged Dhaka to draft its own definition of climate finance, still unresolved in negotiations.

Farah Kabir, Country Director of ActionAid Bangladesh, highlighted that climate change is eroding basic rights — food, water, health, and security. She regretted that the ICJ failed to explicitly link gender justice to human rights, despite grassroots women and children bearing the heaviest burden.

Structural and governance challenges

Dr. Shamsuddoha, Chief Executive of CPRD, criticised the Paris Agreement for prioritising national interests over global needs. Without requiring historic polluters to cut emissions proportionately, ICJ opinions would remain symbolic, he warned.

Dr. Nandan Mukherjee, climate scientist, emphasised the need to build capacity for climate attribution science, noting that Bangladesh must better assess impacts such as landslides, which are becoming clearer indicators of climate change than floods or storms.

Local realities

From the grassroots perspective, Mohan Kumar Mondol of LEDARS argued that the ICJ opinion holds “little meaning” for communities already facing salinity and displacement. Even if states win compensation internationally, he warned, communities may vanish before funds reach them.

Hafizul Islam Khan, Executive Director of CCJ-B, reminded that despite political setbacks, the Kyoto Protocol remains valid under international law. He stressed that Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), often seen as voluntary, carry legal weight under the ICJ opinion.

Md. Borhanul Ashekine, Chief Executive of HSF, added that the opinion could be a strategic tool in negotiations, creating moral pressure on developed nations. He urged policymakers to explore ways of converting such opinions into binding norms in the future.

Speakers agreed that while unenforceable, the ICJ opinion strengthens the moral and political case for climate justice. They called on Bangladesh to bolster its domestic laws, diplomatic engagement, and institutional responses to leverage the ruling in international forums.

The roundtable was supported by CARE Bangladesh, ActionAid, Friendship, ICCCAD, CPRD, NACOM, CCJ-B, SEECITO, LEDARS, and BRIGHTERS, among others.