Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s visit to the United States to attend and address the UN General Assembly comes at a time when Nepal has suffered an unimaginable catastrophe linked to environmental degradation and carbon emissions. Climate justice advocates around the world are calling for compensation for Nepal. These voices could strengthen the prime minister’s position as he makes a strong and legitimate claim for compensation from the international community for the recent flood damage caused, in part, by carbon emissions from major contributors. He may urge the contributors to provide justifiable compensation, cautioning that failure to address such foreseeable losses and damages could invite mass tort actions, while also calling on the international community to take stronger measures to prevent similar disasters.
The recent glacier-related flood, which caused an unimaginable loss of human lives and property in Nepal, has not only become a tragic episode for the world but has also raised serious questions about whether preventive measures could have been taken. Voices from different quarters are demanding justifiable compensation for losses linked to carbon emissions and their impact on the Himalayas. The discourse has now moved beyond recovery to questions of legal recourse and justice for such enormous damage, potentially setting a precedent for the future.
According to environmental scientists and climate advocates, the unprecedented loss of life and property caused by the flash flood is linked to glacier melt in the Himalayas, which has been accelerated by environmental degradation, carbon emissions and pollution. They argue that those contributing significantly to such degradation should be held accountable for the resulting destruction.
Under modern legal principles of liability, every natural and legal person has a duty of care toward other people, property, communities, institutions and the common heritage. Causing damage to life and property through a breach of that duty, including through failure to take reasonable measures, may constitute a tort for which compensation is a principal legal remedy. The disaster has occurred at a time when legal scholars and jurists are increasingly examining the principles and application of mass torts and their possible enforcement across borders.
SHIFT for Our Planet: Youths urge authorities to make climate j...
Tort law, as widely recognised and practised, imposes a duty of care toward human life and property. Failure to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm may give rise to liability. Where multiple contributors are responsible for environmental damage, the principles of comparative and contributory negligence may become relevant.
Environmental pollution caused by carbon emissions that puts human communities and habitats at risk can be viewed as a breach of responsibility and the duty of care toward human life and property. Where such pollution causes damage, it can form the basis of a claim for compensation.
The recent disaster in Nepal therefore raises serious questions about how such harm should be treated, addressed and remedied as a civil matter. The massive loss of life and property raises the question of whether states and other actors whose emissions contribute to glacier melt and environmental degradation can be held liable. From this perspective, the disaster could be examined through the framework of mass tort, with those responsible potentially liable for the resulting damage.
Major carbon-emitting countries, including India and the United States, are among the contributors to global environmental degradation affecting the Himalayas. If research and evidence establish a causal connection, the principle of equity could be applied to determine responsibility proportionately, including through the doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence in tort law.
Many international and domestic institutions have yet to fully recognise the legal implications of such incidents. Cases involving mass tort remain relatively rare, even as corporate negligence, industrial pollution, toxic waste and emissions continue to cause widespread harm. Large groups of people can suffer damage to their lives and property simultaneously, while effective and just remedies remain difficult to obtain.
Wrongdoers are generally held liable for damages under tort law. Environmental pollution and emissions that cause irreparable harm to lives and property could potentially constitute a form of toxic tort, for which contributors may be held liable under principles applicable to mass torts. Where environmental destruction directly affects human lives, affected parties may seek compensation for loss of life, property devaluation, clean-up costs, health impacts and forced relocation under legal principles including negligence, public nuisance, strict liability and the polluter-pays principle.
The ongoing discourse that pollution and greenhouse gas emissions contribute to glacier melt and endanger human habitats is increasingly being framed through the concept of mass tort. Courts have yet to establish comprehensive guidance on such claims, although several significant cases have begun testing these principles. One landmark case in Germany involved a Peruvian farmer who sued a German electricity company over emissions allegedly contributing to the melting of the Palcaraju glacier and threatening his community. The case was heard in a German court and demonstrated that emitters may potentially be held legally accountable for climate-related risks across international borders.
Such developments point to a broader shift in international law. The International Court of Justice, through its landmark advisory opinion, has affirmed that states have legal obligations to prevent significant environmental harm, including harm linked to climate change, and that failure to take effective measures to prevent such harm can give rise to international responsibility and potentially reparations.
The evolving jurisprudence of tort law and its application to transboundary environmental harm is therefore becoming a matter of common concern for the international community. This is the right time for Nepal to speak forcefully about climate justice, urge the international community to recognise its legal and humanitarian obligations, and seek compensation for the losses suffered by invoking the principles of comparative responsibility and mass tort.
The author is a Senior Advocate and legal expert in civil rights and tort law, with a Doctorate in Juridical Science and an LLM (Honours) from the United States.
