Authored By: BRITNEY VUSHA AMUGUNE
Kenyatta University School of Law Parklands Campus
I. Introduction
By the close of COP30 in November 2025 the world confronted a sobering reality. Despite 119 countries submitting new climate commitments covering 74% of global emissions these pledges deliver less than 15% of the emissions reductions required by 2035 to limit warming to 1.5°C.1 Meanwhile 2024 shattered temperature records becoming the hottest year ever at 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels.2 The United Nations reports that 305 million people will require humanitarian assistance in 2025 largely driven by climate emergencies.
This gap between climate commitments and climate reality raises profound legal questions. Do states have legal obligations under international law to meet their climate targets? Can countries be held accountable when inadequate climate action contributes to humanitarian disasters? This article examines the legal framework of Nationally Determined Contributions argues that the current system lacks enforceable accountability mechanisms and proposes legal reforms to close the gap between promise and performance.
II. The NDC Ambition Gap
Under the Paris Agreement countries submit Nationally Determined Contributions every five years outlining their climate targets for emissions reductions adaptation and finance.3 The 2025 round of NDCs was critical as they set targets for 2035 the year by which the IPCC estimates global greenhouse gases must be reduced by 60% from 2019 levels to keep 1.5°C within reach.
The results are disappointing. UN analysis finds that even with the latest NDCs and current policies the world remains on course for 2.3-2.8°C of warming.4 The NDCs submitted collectively would reduce emissions by only 10-12% below 2019 levels by 2035 far short of the 60% reduction required. Major emitters including some G20 countries have submitted targets that fall well short of their fair share based on historical emissions and economic capacity.
The gap is not merely technical. It represents a failure of political will. Countries face domestic pressures from fossil fuel industries economic concerns about transition costs and geopolitical competition. The result is a tragedy of the commons where each nation’s inadequate action contributes to collective catastrophe.
III. Legal Framework: Are NDCs Binding?
The Paris Agreement is legally binding but its structure is nuanced. Article 4.2 requires each party to prepare communicate and maintain successive NDCs and to pursue domestic mitigation measures to achieve the objectives of such contributions.5 The obligation to prepare and communicate NDCs is binding. However the targets themselves are not directly enforceable. States have discretion to set their own ambition levels and no penalty mechanism exists for failing to meet targets.
This structure reflects political compromise. Developed countries particularly the United States insisted on nationally determined contributions rather than top-down binding targets. The result is a system that relies on transparency peer pressure and the ratchet mechanism where each successive NDC should represent a progression beyond the previous one.
However the lack of enforceability does not mean states have no legal obligations. The Paris Agreement’s preamble acknowledges climate change as a common concern of humankind and references human rights obligations. Article 2 sets the long-term temperature goal of holding increase to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit increase to 1.5°C.6 While not creating specific obligations this language establishes the normative framework within which NDCs must be understood.
IV. Climate Inaction as Human Rights Violation
Inadequate climate action has devastating human consequences. The 305 million people requiring humanitarian assistance in 2025 face displacement food insecurity water scarcity and health crises driven by climate impacts.7International human rights law provides a potential accountability mechanism.
The UN Human Rights Committee has recognized that climate change threatens the enjoyment of rights including life health water food and housing. In landmark cases such as Teitiota v. New Zealand the Committee held that states may not deport individuals to countries where climate change threatens their rights.8 More recently in Billy v. Australia youth petitioners argued that Australia’s inadequate climate action violated their rights.
These cases establish that states have obligations under human rights law to protect people from foreseeable climate harms. If a state’s inadequate NDC contributes to climate disasters that violate human rights could the state be held legally accountable? The answer is theoretically yes but practically difficult. Establishing causation between a specific state’s emissions and specific climate harms faces scientific and legal challenges. Moreover most human rights mechanisms lack enforcement powers beyond naming and shaming.
V. Recommendations for Legal Reform
First the Paris Agreement could be strengthened through amendments or additional protocols establishing minimum ambition levels based on science and equity. While politically challenging such reforms would ensure that NDCs collectively achieve the temperature goals.
Second an independent expert review mechanism could assess whether NDCs are consistent with fair share contributions. The current transparency framework reviews implementation but does not evaluate adequacy of targets. An expert body could issue authoritative assessments creating reputational pressure for stronger commitments.
Third linking climate obligations to development finance could create incentives. Developing countries need financial support to implement ambitious NDCs estimated at 560 billion dollars for the 2025-2030 period.9 Making finance conditional on ambition while ensuring support reaches those most vulnerable could narrow the gap.
Fourth national courts are playing an increasingly important role. Climate litigation has proliferated with cases challenging governments for inadequate climate action. In Urgenda v. Netherlands the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to increase emissions reductions based on human rights and duty of care.10 Such judgments demonstrate that domestic legal systems can provide accountability where international mechanisms fall short.
VI. Conclusion
The gap between climate commitments and climate reality is more than a policy failure. It is a legal and moral crisis. When 305 million people face humanitarian disasters driven by climate change yet countries pledge only 15% of required emissions reductions the international legal system reveals its inadequacy. The Paris Agreement’s soft approach to enforcement was necessary for securing universal participation but it has proven insufficient to drive the ambition needed. Legal reforms are essential including stronger accountability mechanisms linkages to human rights obligations and support for climate litigation. The world stands at
1.55°C of warming. Every fraction of a degree matters. The legal community must rise to meet this challenge ensuring that climate commitments translate into climate action before it is too late.
Reference(S):
1. COP30: Outcomes, Disappointments and What’s Next, World Resources Institute (Nov. 22, 2025).
2. 2024 Confirmed as Hottest Year on Record, World Meteorological Organization (Jan. 2025).
3. Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, art. 4.
4. COP30: Outcomes, Disappointments and What’s Next, World Resources Institute (Nov. 22, 2025).
5. Paris Agreement, art. 4.2.
6. Paris Agreement, art. 2.1(a).
7. Global Humanitarian Overview 2025, United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Dec. 2024).
8. Teitiota v. New Zealand, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 2728/2016 (Jan. 7, 2020).
9. 2025 NDCs Synthesis Report, UNFCCC Secretariat (Oct. 28, 2025).
10. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Hoge Raad, 19/00135 (Dec. 20, 2019).
