A YEAR OF CATASTROPHE: LEGAL AND HUMANITARIAN LESSONS FROM GLOBAL DISASTER IN 2025 – ANALYZING INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Authored By: Tasneem nafiss

Capital Law College Bhubaneswar Odisha

Abstract

This year 2025 have proved that today’s time disasters are multi-hazard, Trans boundary and policy-testing. In India Uttarakhan cloudburst and extreme record breaking monsoon, where globally M7.7 earthquake disturbed Myanmar and monsoon floods destroyed Pakistan.

This article gives a 50-50 analysis to the: (i) international regime – sendai framework, ILC draft articles on protection of persons in the event of disasters, ASEAN’s AADMER, EU mechanisms, Tampere convention and (ii) India’s framework – disaster management Act, 2005 (after 2025 amendment), National plan, institutions and jurisprudence. Article gaps highlight’s such risk governance, local capacity, early warning uptake, migrant protection, and cross-border aid facilitation. Way forward it has been suggested: doing risk databases operationalize, forecast-based financing, statutory facilitation for international assistance, and right-based relief standards. The aim is to covert 2025 lessons in legal and institutional reforms.[1] [2]

Keywords: disaster risk reduction, sendai framework; disaster management act 2005 (amended 2025); AADMER; humanitarian assistance; early warning; India.

Introduction

In July – August 2025, cloudburst and flash floods in Uttarakhan triggered landslides, house collapsed and road blockages across Rudraprayag, pauri garhwal, chamoli and adjoining districts, with multiple fatalities and missing person reported as authorities scrambled with NDRF/SDRF deployments. With this, Mumbai during 15-19^th August 2025 faced 837 mm rainfall, which collapsed transport and issued red alert. Regionally, in 28^th march 2025 in central Myanmar earthquake of M 7.7 happened, where thousands of causalities came and ASEAN/EU activated coordinate assistance. All these events happened between climate stressors and it tested the international and national regimes, where 2025 happened to be a “teachable year” for legal design and accountability.[3][4]

Research methodology

This study is doctrinal and comparative. Sources are from statutes government notification, treaties, official plans/guidelines, some Supreme Court judgments and authoritative intergovernmental outputs (UNDRR/ILC/ASEAN). 2025 factual references are from government release and reliable media sources based on (Reuters, AP, Reliefweb, IMD/PIB/NDMA). Timeframe are from Jan – Aug 2025. Citations will be used in OSCOLA style.

Main body

Legal framework

A1. International instruments and cooperation

Sendai framework for DRR (2015 – 2030): Global non-binding blueprint which focuses on risk understanding, governance and “Build back better”. It remains the cornerstone of global disaster governance. It sets seven global targets, including substantial reduction immortality, affected persons, economic loss, and damage to critical infrastructure.

Four priorities:

Understanding disaster risk
Strengthening disaster risk governance
Investing in resilience
Enhancing preparedness and “build back better”

It shape both national planning and international cooperation. While sendai is non-binding, its voluntary monitoring mechanism under UNDRR has allowed cross-country comparisons. In 2025n progress reports revealed that many states, including India, has implementation. TheHighlights a lesson: without embedding sendai’s priorities into binding domestic law, progress remain fragile. [5]

ILC draft articles (2016): emphasize the duties of cooperation and human rights-centered relief. Advance legal clarity on sovereignty, consent, and duties to cooperate. They required affected states to seek external assistance where national response capacity is insufficient and obligate assisting states to respect the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality. Although not yet converted into treaty, the UNGA’s 2025 debates indicate growing momentum for codification, particularly after the Myanmar earthquake. The lesson here is that humanitarian access still depends heavily on political will, even when normative guidance exists.[6]
ASEAN’s AADMER (agreement on disaster management and emergency response) & AHA Center: legally binding treaty visibly activated after Myanmar earthquake 2025. Within 24 hours, ASEAN deployed relief teams and mobilized regional warehouse. However, access bottlenecks remained in contested areas of Myanmar, showing the difficulty of balancing state consent with humanitarian urgency. The lesson is that regional treaties can speed response, but without domestic enabling law and political cooperation, humanitarian corridors remain partial.[7]
EU civil protection mechanism (UCPM): joint deployment and humanitarian Air bridge where 80 tons of relief were sent to Myanmar. The EU’s Copernicus satellite mapping was also activated, offering damage assessments within 48 hours. These tools underscore the lesson that supranational pooling of assets (aircraft, mapping, and medical teams) increases speed and scale of humanitarian response. The contrast is clear: ASEAN and EU both have regional frameworks, but the EU’s funding and legal authority allow more comprehensive operations.[8]
Tampere convention (1998): streamlines use of telecom resources for disaster relief by removing regulatory bottlenecks – a key but under-utilized facilitation tool.[9]
IFRC IDRL Guidelines (2007): soft-law guidance for domestic facilitation of international aid. Continue to be under-utilized. For example, Myanmar’s 2025 quake response again faced customs delays for satellite communication equipment, despite Tampere providing a legal basis for expedited entry. Similarly, the absence of pre-legislated IDRL facilities in several South Asian countries slowed NGO deployments during the 2025 monsoon floods. This reinforces a core legal lesson: soft law without domestic codification leaves humanitarian response hostage to case-by-case waivers.[10]

Takeaway: 2025 shows that regional/continental coordination have been improved (ASEAN/EU), but also persistent friction around consent, access, and domestic legal gateways for external aid.

A2. India’s framework (statutes + plans + institutions)

Disaster Management Act 2005 (after March 2025 amendment) is centerpiece. NDMA, NDRF, SDRF, NEC and National/state/district plans are pillar. 2025 amendment did new changes:

The amendment inserted the concept of “disaster risk reduction” (DRR) directly into the Act’s objectives, reflecting India’s alignment with the Sendai Framework. It mandated the creation of a national disaster database, strengthened the authority of the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC), and gave legal recognition to Urban Authorities as frontline actors in mitigation and preparedness. Importantly, the amendment authorized the issuance of hazard-specific notifications, enforceable with penalties up to ₹10,000 for non-compliance with safety measures.[11]

India’s National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), under the Prime Minister’s chairmanship, supervises policy and planning, supported by the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Forces (SDRFs).[12] The National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) (revised in 2019 and updated in 2022) incorporates Sendai priorities, focusing on community-based preparedness, resilient infrastructure, and mainstreaming DRR into development.[13]

The year 2025 provided a test of these frameworks. In July, cloudbursts in Uttarakhand triggered massive landslides across Rudraprayag, Chamoli, and Pauri Garhwal districts, killing dozens and blocking highways to pilgrimage towns.[14] SDRF and NDRF teams conducted high-altitude rescues, but delays in road clearance and weather disruptions highlighted persistent logistical gaps. Similarly, in August 2025, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region recorded 837 mm of rain in just four days (15–19 August), the heaviest since 2005, submerging transport lines and halting city life. The NDMA issued advisories, and the IMD disseminated red alerts via cell broadcast messages, showcasing improvements in early warning.

Meanwhile, floods in Assam and Meghalaya displaced thousands in July 2025, with the Brahmaputra crossing danger levels. State governments mobilized SDRFs, but reports from local NGOs flagged shortages of relief supplies and shelter space. In Odisha, early cyclone warnings in May 2025 led to preventive evacuations of over 60,000 people, drawing praise as a model of anticipatory action. These episodes underscore both strengths (robust institutional capacity, IMD’s reliable forecasts, and growing culture of pre-evacuation) and gaps (last-mile logistics, inconsistent state-level enforcement of building codes, and fragile urban infrastructure).

Judicial oversight also shaped India’s humanitarian response. In Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court stressed that the state’s failure to mitigate drought violated the right to life, embedding accountability into disaster governance. In Gaurav Kumar Bansal v Union of India (2021), the Court directed uniform ex gratia compensation for COVID-19 deaths under Section 12 of the DMA, reaffirming that disaster relief is a justiciable entitlement, not mere policy grace. These precedents remain relevant: litigation in the Kerala High Court in 2025, concerning loan relief after Wayanad landslides, echoed the same principles of enforceable state responsibility.

Lesson (India 2025): India’s framework demonstrates institutional maturity and legal responsiveness, but persistent challenges—urban planning, anticipatory finance, and consistent state-level implementation—reveal the need for deeper statutory and fiscal reform.

Judicial Interpretation

Courts interpret DMA and set relief standards:

Swaraj abhiyan v. UOI (2016): create drought relief an enforceable duty.[15]
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. UOI (2021): ordered “ex gratia” compensation for COVID deaths.[16]
In Re: distribution of essential supplies (2021): Supreme Court strictly oversight the distribution of oxygen/medicines.[17]

Implication: courts made relief an enforceable rights and pushed transparency – principles that remain pertinent to 2025’s hydro met disasters.

Critical analysis

International:

Myanmar earthquake highlights the sovereignty vs. cooperation dilemma. Showed how access and coordination are fragile in conflict-affected contexts, even with ASEAN/EU support. [18]
Information infrastructure: UCPM’s air bridge and Copernicus mapping underscore the value of common operating pictures that many regions still lack. [19]

India:

Strengths: statutory backbone, early warning IMD alerts, NDRF/SDRF protocols.
Gaps: local governance, weak, relief entitlements unclear, national database still not resourced. [20]

Cross-cutting:

Forecast-based financing (FbF): despite better warnings, pre-arranged triggers for cash/asset support are patchy; Sendai and the DMA (2025) now conceptually enable this, but budgetary rules need alignment.[21]
Human rights in relief: the ILC draft articles and Indian jurisprudence converge on dignity/non-discrimination; implementation lags in shelter management, documentation for migrants, and gender-sensitive services.

Recent developments (2025)

India:

DMA amendment 2025 (29^th) define DRR (disaster risk reduction), mandate database, empower NCMC, and introduced penalties upto Rs.10, 000.
Monsoon 2025: Mumbai and uttarakhand disasters highlight statutory gaps.[22]
Kerala HC (June 2025): criticized government loan-relief indecision post-wayand landslides, highlighting gaps after legislative changes to financial-relief provision.[23]

International:

Myanmar earthquake (28 march 2025): ASEAN activated AHA center deployment; EU launched a Humanitarian air bridge and additional funding; UN/OCHA issues an HNRP flash addendum.[24]
Pakistan monsoon 2025: successive cloudbursts and floods killed dozens in multiple provinces; NDMA and provincial authorities coordinated evacuations and shelter.[25]
South Korea (July 2025): extreme downpours caused deadly landslides and floods, adding to Asia’s hydro met losses.[26]

Suggestions

Operationalize the national disaster database (India): publish risk registers, preparedness audits, and post-disaster reviews in open formats; tie pre-agreed triggers to pre-positioned relief and cash assistance (FbF).
Localize capacity: ring-fence urban resilience budgets; standardize war-lever plans and mock-drills; embed social protection linkages (PFDS, e-shram, PM-JAY) into disaster workflow.
Facilitate international assistance in law: adopt IDRL-style domestic rules for expedited customs/visas, telecom and NGO operations during declared disasters.
Regional & cross-border mutual aid: codify shelter, WASH, GBV protection, and documentation services as enforceable minima-aligning with Supreme Court reasoning and Sendai’s people-centered approach.
Regional & cross-boarded mutual aid: expand SAARC BIMSTEC cooperation by adapting AADMER-style legal certainly and join exercises.

Conclusion

2025 disasters cleared one thing: risks are systematic and law matters. Internationally, sendai provides vocabulary and AADMER/UCPM shows that binding frameworks + operational tools are lifesaving. Nationally, DMA 2025 amendment modernize foundation. Now the real test is implementation:

Fund the risk databases
Empower cities
Guarantee rights-based relief
Pre-arrange financing

If the legal system can turn 2025’s shocks into institutional muscle memory, the next “year of catastrophe” can be a year of resilience instead.

Bibliography

International Instruments & Policy

UNDRR, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. ndmindia.mha.gov.in
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (2016). legal.un.org
ASEAN, AADMER; AHA Centre 2025 Situation Updates. Reuters ahacentre.org
European Commission (ECHO), EU Humanitarian Air Bridge to Myanmar (Apr 2025). ECHO
Tampere Convention (1998). Indian Kanoon
IFRC, IDRL Guidelines (2007). National Disaster Management Authority

India: Statutes, Plans, Institutions

The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025, Gazette of India, No. 10 of 2025 (29 March 2025). ndmindia.mha.gov.in
NDMA, National Disaster Management Plan (latest Ed.). ECHO

Cases

Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India (2016). ReliefWeb
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v Union of India (2021). US News
In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services during Pandemic (2021). https://clpr.org.in/litigation/re-distribution-pf-essential-supplies-and-services-during-the-pandemic/

Factual/Events (2025)

IMD press releases/advisories (Aug 2025). Wikipedia
ReliefWeb/ASEAN/OCHA on Myanmar quake (Mar–Apr 2025). ReliefWeb Humanitarian Action
Reuters on Pakistan/South Korea 2025 floods/landslides.
National reportage on Uttarakhand cloudbursts (July–Aug 2025). ReliefWeb Press Information Bureau
Kerala HC reporting on loan-relief indecision (June 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/kerala-high-court-slams-centre-over-indecision-on-wayanad-loan-waiver/articleshow/.

[1] https://reliefweb.int/report/india/situation-report-1-uttarakhand-cloudburst-and-flash-flood-date-06th-august-2025-time-1000am. Accessed 22 August 2025

[2]https://ndmindia.mha.gov.in/ndmi/images/The%20Disaster%20Management%20Act%2C%202005.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2025

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Myanmar_earthquake. Accessed 22 August 2025.

[4] https://roasiapacific.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl671/files/documents/2025-05/myanmar-earthquake-response-situation-report-no.-7.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2025.

[5] UNDRR, Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework 2015–2030 (2023) https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/voluntary-commitments. Accessed 22 August 2025.

[6] UNGA, ‘Sixth Committee Debates on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters’ UN Press Release (October 2025).

[7] ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre), Situation Update No. 1: Myanmar Earthquake 28 March 2025 (AHA Centre 2025). https://theaseanmagazine.asean.org/article/aseans-response-to-the-mandalay-earthquake/. Accessed August 23, 2025

[8] https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu. Accessed 23 August 2025

[9] Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations (adopted 18 June 1998, entered into force 8 Jan 2005) 2296 UNTS 5.

[10] IFRC, IDRL Guidelines: Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance (2007).

[11] The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act 2025, No 10 of 2025, Gazette of India, 29 March 2025.

[12] https://ndma.gov.in/. Accessed 23 August 2025

[13] NDMA, National Disaster Management Plan (Government of India 2019, updated 2022).

[14] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/uttarakhand/cloudburst-in-uttarkashi-many-feared-washed-away/article69896699.ece#:~:text=The%20floods%20hit%20hotels%20and,a%20sludge%2Dfilled%20river%20bed.&text=Given%20the%20poor%20weather%20conditions,away%20in%20the%20raging%20waters. Accessed 23 August 2025

[15] https://lawtimesjournal.in/swaraj-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-ors/. Accessed 23 August 2025

[16] https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/gaurav-bansal-v-union-of-india/. Accessed 23 August 2025

[17] https://clpr.org.in/litigation/re-distribution-pf-essential-supplies-and-services-during-the-pandemic/. Accessed 23 August 2025

[18] https://roasiapacific.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl671/files/documents/2025-05/myanmar-earthquake-response-situation-report-no.-7.pdf. , ahacentre.org , ECHO , Accessed 24 August 2025

[19] https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-copernicus-ems-rapid-mapping-rapid-relief. Accessed 24 August 2025

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Myanmar_earthquake. , https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/eu-civil-protection-mechanism_en. Accessed 24 August 2025

[21] The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025, Gazette of India, No. 10 of 2025 (assented 29 March 2025);

[22] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx. Accessed 24 August 2025