A Case for Nepal Suing Major Carbon Emitters for Floods

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 3- Environment

Introduction

The August 2026 floods in Nepal, triggered by a mountain glacier collapse, killed more than 1,300 people and left over 5,000 missing. Despite contributing less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Nepal has sought $20 million in compensation. The disaster raises a wider question: can climate-vulnerable communities and states hold major emitters legally accountable for climate-related harm through courts and international mechanisms?

Climate Justice: Principles and Nepal’s Vulnerability

1. Meaning of Climate Justice: It is a moral and ethical principle that addresses the unequal impact of climate change on vulnerable communities and future generations.
2. Unequal Distribution of Climate Impacts: Countries contributing very little to global emissions often face severe climate-related losses, while major emitters contribute significantly to cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
3. Nepal’s Low Emissions: Nepal contributes less than 0.1% of global GHG emissions and generates most of its electricity from renewable energy, yet faces severe climate risks.
4. Accelerating Himalayan Glacier Loss: Glaciers across the Hindu Kush Himalaya lost ice 65% faster during 2011–2020 than in the previous decade, while Nepal lost nearly one-third of its glacier ice volume in about three decades.
5. Exposure to Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs): Communities in Nepal’s Trishuli and Bhote Koshi river basins have faced GLOF risks for three decades, while glaciers in the Tibetan Autonomous Region have retreated faster since 2010.
6. Future Climate Risks: Scientists predict that mountain glaciers will lose most of their volume by the end of the 21st century, threatening alpine ecosystems and human populations.
7. Economic Losses: Preliminary estimates by Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority put property, housing and infrastructure losses from the floods at approximately $2.56 billion.
8. Beyond Financial Assistance: Climate justice seeks to move beyond aid and charity towards accountability, compensation and recognition of losses suffered by vulnerable countries.

Climate Litigation: Concept and Legal Basis

1. Meaning of Climate Litigation: It involves legal claims against governments and private corporations for their contribution to climate-related harm, with affected individuals bringing such cases in several European and US jurisdictions.
2. Grounds for Legal Claims: Plaintiffs have approached courts citing serious risks to life, well-being, health, property, privacy and family life arising from climate change.
3. Difficulty in Establishing Causation: Establishing a direct link between an entity’s failure to restrict GHG emissions and a specific disaster remains legally difficult because emissions have global and long-lasting effects.
4. Incremental Contribution to Climate Change: Individual emitters add to cumulative global GHG concentrations, increasing the likelihood of adverse physical events whose impacts depend on exposure, vulnerability and resilience.
5. Identification of Climate Victims and Legal Standing: Identifying individuals or communities specifically exposed to climate risks, rather than the general population, provides the basis for invoking individual or collective rights and seeking compensation.
6. Establishing Imminent Climate Risks: Existing GLOF threats in the Trishuli and Bhote Koshi river basins, along with accelerating glacier retreat, may help establish the imminence of climate-related catastrophes.

Global Judicial Precedents on Climate Accountability

1. Lliuya v. RWE (Germany):

• A Peruvian national sued German energy company RWE under German private nuisance law, alleging that its coal-fired power generation threatened glacier stability near his home.
• On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm recognised that individual emissions could proportionally contribute to climate risks abroad and that an emitter could, in principle, face liability under German civil law.
• However, the specific claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of an imminent flood risk.

2. Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands): On November 12, 2024, the Dutch Court of Appeal recognised Shell’s obligation to contribute to combating climate change under Dutch tort law and human rights standards. However, it overturned the earlier order requiring a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030.
3. Asmania v. Holcim (Switzerland): Four Indonesian islanders filed a climate lawsuit against Swiss building-material company Holcim, seeking reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and compensation for present and future climate-related damages.
4. Relevance for Nepal: These cases demonstrate growing judicial recognition of corporate climate responsibilities and provide legal arguments that Nepalese flood victims could explore, although they do not establish binding precedents for Nepal.

International Framework for Climate Justice and Compensation

1. UN Loss and Damage Fund: Established in 2022 under the Paris Agreement framework, the fund aims to address climate-related loss and damage in vulnerable developing countries.
2. Nepal’s Compensation Demand: Nepal’s Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment jointly requested $20 million from the United Nations to address losses caused by the catastrophic floods.
3. Funding Shortage: The United Nations Loss and Damage Fund faces a $2.8 billion funding gap as it prepares to approve its first climate recovery projects.
4. ICJ Advisory Opinion (2025): In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that states have binding obligations under climate treaties and customary international law to prevent significant climate harm.
5. State Responsibility and Reparations: States breaching their international climate obligations may be required to provide full reparations, including compensation, provided a sufficiently direct and certain causal link between wrongful conduct and injury is established.
6. Legal Significance of the Advisory Opinion: Although non-binding, the ICJ opinion clarifies existing international legal obligations and provides an important basis for climate-vulnerable countries to seek accountability.
7. Changing International Climate Negotiations: Earlier discussions on compensating climate-affected countries gradually shifted towards providing financial assistance to developing countries for addressing climate change.

Challenges in Securing Climate Justice

1. Difficulty in Proving Legal Responsibility: The cumulative nature of GHG emissions and multiple contributing factors make it difficult to establish the responsibility of individual emitters for specific climate-related damage.
2. Absence of Binding Judicial Precedents: International climate litigation cases do not create binding precedents for other jurisdictions, limiting their direct application to Nepal’s legal claims.
3. Reluctance of Developed Countries: Wealthy countries may resist compensation claims because accepting such responsibility could establish a precedent for similar demands from other climate-vulnerable countries.
4. Shift from Compensation to Assistance: International climate negotiations gradually moved away from compensation claims towards financial assistance, making direct compensation for climate-related losses difficult.
5. Domestic Development Challenges: Nepal’s government has been criticised for not giving climate resilience sufficient priority in its national budget despite repeated climate-related disasters.

Way Forward

1. Pursuing Climate Litigation: Nepalese flood victims can explore legal action against major GHG emitters, using existing international cases to support arguments for corporate accountability.
2. Strengthening International Climate Finance: Major emitting countries, particularly those from the Global North, should increase their contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund to support vulnerable countries.
3. Compensation and Community-Based Support: Financial assistance should reach affected communities as compensation rather than loans, supporting their recovery and rehabilitation.
4. Integrating Climate Resilience into Development: Nepal should make sustainability and climate resilience essential parts of its development model, while ensuring development partners and investors prioritise sustainable investments.
5. Strengthening Domestic Climate Governance: The government should give climate action greater priority in its budget and support clean hydropower, forestry and other climate-related programmes.
6. International Cooperation: Countries should accelerate efforts to phase out fossil fuels and address climate change to reduce the growing risks faced by vulnerable populations.

Conclusion

Nepal’s case tests whether climate responsibility can translate into legal accountability and fair compensation. International law and climate litigation offer possible routes, but claims require evidence linking wrongful conduct to harm. Justice also depends on adequate climate finance and Nepal’s own commitment to climate-resilient, sustainable development for vulnerable communities.

Question for practice:

Discuss the concept of climate justice and examine the legal and international mechanisms available to hold major carbon emitters accountable for climate-related losses, with special reference to Nepal.

Source: The Hindu