Permanent Mission of India
New York
--

Adoption of the Resolution on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change

Explanation of Vote

Statement by Ms. Petal Gahlot, First Secretary
20 May 2026 

Madam President,

I take the floor to provide an explanation of my delegation’s position on the resolution that has just been adopted.

Madam President,

There is no doubt that climate change is a major challenge facing our planet, and no single country can respond to this challenge alone. Climate action requires international solidarity and cooperation and in India’s view, the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement provide us an agreed upon, equitable and sophisticated architecture to realise our climate goals. All Parties to the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement have, in good faith, undertaken ambitious commitments based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.

For India, CBDR-RC and Equity is not a mere slogan but guides climate action. Those that have historically contributed to climate change bear the responsibility to provide the means of implementation to countries of the Global South so that they may be able to fulfil their ambitious climate targets. This is a fair expectation and indeed a legal obligation that clearly falls within the ambit of the UNFCCC architecture.

Madam President, 

Sustainable development and poverty eradication remain the overriding priorities of developing countries. Any transition in energy systems must therefore be just, orderly, and equitable, taking into account the need for energy access, economic growth, and social development. The resolution does not adequately recognise these imperatives, and constrains policy space for developing countries.

It is further a case of insult to injury that there is absolutely no reference to the necessity of developed countries continuing to take the lead in mitigation and providing adequate and predictable financing, technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries in order for them to undertake such transitions.

The term “climate finance” appears nowhere in the text. It is now a well documented fact that the climate finance goal agreed to in 2024 falls short of the needs of developing countries and deserved more attention in a resolution that deals with Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, particularly since the Court’s Advisory Opinion itself does not shy away from doing so. This, in our view, is a serious omission.

Furthermore, the draft resolution falls short of clearly reflecting the advisory and non- binding nature of the Court’s Opinion. We are therefore seriously concerned that the resolution undermines the sacrosanct architecture of the UNFCCC process, by elevating an Advisory Opinion to a binding or quasi-binding status, attempting to impose obligations on developing countries that have not been multilaterally agreed upon. This is a dangerous precedent that we must all be wary of.

Madam President,

India further underscores that the nationally determined nature of climate action must be fully respected. The resolution prescribes specific mitigation pathways, imposes external benchmarks for ambition, and creates conditions that may invite judicial or quasi-judicial scrutiny of nationally determined contributions. This seriously undermines national policy space and disrupts the bottom-up architecture of the Paris Agreement.

Furthermore, the references to the first Global Stocktake are inaccurate and lopsided. As reflected in Article 14 of the Paris Agreement, the Global Stocktake is intended to inform Parties in updating and enhancing their actions and support, in a nationally determined manner; it is not designed to create prescriptive or implementation-oriented obligations. However, the resolution calls for the implementation of specific elements, including paragraph 28, which was not consistent with the agreed mandate of the Global Stocktake. We also regret that the resolution does not adequately reflect the full scope of the Stocktake outcomes, including findings relating to adaptation gaps and means of implementation.

Madam President,

India engaged constructively during the negotiations of this resolution and clarified its concerns and positions at every stage. We are therefore disappointed that our concerns were not addressed, despite our best efforts to find common ground.

Yet, India is a champion of climate action, having itself undertaken ambitious climate commitments in its recently updated NDCs. By raising its emissions intensity reduction target to 47% by 2035 from 2005 levels, committing to achieve 60% of installed electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2035, and strengthening its carbon sink target to 3.5–4 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent through additional forest and tree cover, India walks the talk on climate ambition.

Madam President,

As a large country with diverse climatic zones, from mountain ecosystems to coral reefs and islands in the Indian Ocean, coupled with populations vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, India has deep sympathies with our brothers and sisters of the Pacific region, and indeed with the wider SIDS (Small Island Developing States) community. The need to address historical injustice experienced by SIDS and their specific vulnerability to climate change is the basis for our development cooperation with the SIDS. India’s track record in this regard speaks for itself.

It is for this reason, that despite our concerns not being addressed in this resolution, India did not vote against it. Several elements in the resolution, such as the exclusion of means of implementation for developing countries, are contrary to India’s principled stand on climate action. The fact that the resolution is adopted by the General Assembly does not, in itself, create binding commitments for us. Our obligations arise only from outcomes adopted under the UNFCCC process. Hence, in line with our stated position on Climate Change related issues, India was not in a position to vote in favour of this resolution. India therefore supported the amendments to OPs 3, 4 and 11. On OP 2, India can only take note of the Advisory Opinion of the Court and therefore abstained on the amendment to OP2. Finally, in view of the aforementioned issues in the text India abstained on the resolution, with the hope that our brothers and sisters from the Pacific region will understand our predicament.

I thank you.

***