COP29: A Climate of Injustice – Debt, Exclusion, and the Fight for True Accountability

The outcome of COP29 in Baku marks a distressing setback for global climate governance, underscoring persistent inequities. The conference failed to deliver adequately on key fronts, including the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, the Loss and Damage Fund, and an inclusive negotiation process. These shortcomings not only fail to address the urgency of the climate crisis but also actively undermine the principles of equity and justice enshrined in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. 

The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) and Human Rights

Negotiations on the NCQG began in 2021 and, despite all the time invested, were fraught with significant flaws. Apart from the “atrociously inadequate” new climate finance goal of $300 billion, the other most concerning issue was the removal of references to human rights, a critical omission that undermines the foundational principle that climate action is inseparably linked to the protection of human rights. By excluding human rights considerations, the NCQG fails to address the intersectional impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, including small island developing states (SIDS), indigenous communities, and Least Developed Countries (LDC).

Even more troubling is the structural approach to financing under the NCQG. Instead of instituting mechanisms that ensure predictable and accessible grants from developed countries, the NCQG perpetuates reliance on international financial institutions that primarily offer loans. This approach fundamentally defeats the purpose of the NCQG. By burdening climate-vulnerable nations with debt, these structures exacerbate economic vulnerabilities rather than alleviating the impacts of climate change. Such financial mechanisms not only fail to meet the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) but also entrench existing inequalities between the Global North and South.

Loss and Damage Fund: A Hollow Victory

The Loss and Damage Fund, once a symbol of hope for climate-vulnerable countries, has been reduced to a hollow victory. While the fund's establishment has been hailed as a milestone in previous COPs, its operational framework remains woefully inadequate. Like the NCQG, the fund relies heavily on loans facilitated by international bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, rather than unconditional grants or reparative financing from historically responsible nations.

This financial model contradicts the very purpose of the Loss and Damage Fund, which is to provide meaningful support to nations grappling with the irreversible impacts of climate change. By turning climate reparations into debt instruments, developed countries have shirked their historical responsibilities and further burdened the Global South. This approach not only violates the spirit of equity but also undermines the credibility of the fund as a mechanism for climate justice.

Loss and damage remains a highly sensitive and unresolved topic in climate negotiations, as evidenced by the fact that the Loss and Damage Fund was not even mentioned in the NCQG decision, unlike other established funds. 

Multilateralism Undermined

The procedural shortcomings of COP29 highlight the systemic inequities that plague international climate negotiations. The presidency’s rushed approval of initial drafts, with limited input from developing nations, underscores the exclusionary nature of the process. Such a top-down approach undermines the legitimacy of the outcomes and fuels distrust in the multilateral system.

Developing countries, which are most affected by climate change, were left with little opportunity to negotiate critical terms. This imbalance reflects the broader power dynamics that have historically sidelined vulnerable nations in international governance, perpetuating inequities that the climate framework was ostensibly designed to address.

The Role of Climate Litigation

COP29’s failures underscore the limitations of multilateral processes in delivering meaningful climate justice. In response, there is an increasing shift toward climate litigation, both contentious and advisory, as a mechanism to bridge the gaps left by political negotiations. Advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) hold transformative potential to clarify state obligations and establish accountability under international law.

These judicial interventions are particularly critical in addressing the systemic injustices entrenched by multilateral failures. By emphasizing equity, CBDRRC, and historical responsibility, advisory opinions can provide a legal framework to demand reparative justice and strengthen trust in international law. They also have the potential to expose and challenge the structural flaws in multilateral mechanisms which have brought us to the 2024 NCQG and 2020 Loss and Damage Fund, ensuring that such instruments serve their intended purpose rather than perpetuating financial inequities.

A Call for Transformative Action

The outcomes of COP29 should be a wake-up call for all Courts and adjudicating bodies that have vested power to change the narrative of reliance on loan-based financing structures, the dilution of human rights commitments, and the exclusionary negotiation processes that reflect a system that is failing the world’s most vulnerable nations. These shortcomings are not just procedural flaws—they are moral failures that demand urgent correction.

To move forward, equity, justice, and reparative financing in climate action need to be prioritized. This requires a fundamental shift away from debt-inducing models and toward grant-based mechanisms that hold historically responsible states accountable. By leveraging international litigation and judicial intervention, there is a beacon of hope to reclaim the principles of equity and justice, ensuring that climate action is both inclusive and transformative. Complementing the ITLOS AO, the pending AO proceedings before the ICJ and the IACtHR ought to play a pivotal role in holding the line by reinforcing principles of international law to fill the gaps left by multilateral processes.