-
31 Jul 2025
GS Paper 4
Case Studies
Day 40: You are a senior officer and a member of India’s official delegation to an international climate summit. The conference is at a critical juncture where developed countries are insisting that all nations, including developing economies like India, adopt higher emission reduction targets immediately. These nations argue that the urgency of climate change requires unified and ambitious global action to avoid catastrophic consequences.
However, India maintains that its historical contribution to global emissions is minimal and that its development trajectory—particularly for the millions who still lack access to basic infrastructure—must not be compromised in the name of rapid carbon neutrality.
India’s stand, rooted in the principles of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), emphasizes that the developed world must do more, given their historical emissions and greater financial capacity. While this position is strongly supported domestically, there is growing international pressure accusing India of blocking consensus on climate action.
Amid these negotiations, you are approached by a reputed international think tank that offers you a prestigious fellowship at a leading university abroad. Although they do not explicitly demand anything in return, it is subtly implied that your support in shifting India’s rigid stance could help you secure the opportunity.
You suspect the offer is not fully altruistic and may influence your objectivity.At the same time, one of your colleagues warns you that continued inflexibility could damage India’s international image and limit future cooperation on technology transfer and climate finance.
A. What ethical issues do you face as a public servant representing national interest at the global stage?
B. How will you deal with the conflict between global ethical responsibilities and national developmental goals?
C. How should you respond to the offer? What ethical values and diplomatic principles should guide such negotiations?
Approach:
- Recognize the conflicting interests between national goals (development and equity) and global responsibilities (climate action).
- Analyze the implications of each course of action, focusing on ethical principles such as public service, fairness, and integrity.
- Provide a solution that balances national and global interests while adhering to ethical standards, ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making.
Introduction:
As a senior officer in India's official delegation at an international climate summit, you are at the crossroads of representing national interests on climate change. India faces international pressure to adopt stricter emission reduction targets while safeguarding its developmental needs. At the same time, you are approached with a potentially compromising offer of a prestigious fellowship.
Stakeholders:
Stakeholder
Role/Interest
You (Senior Officer)
Representing India’s interests while maintaining ethical integrity.
India
A developing country seeking to balance climate action with development goals.
Developed Countries
Pushing for stricter global climate action, emphasizing urgency.
International Think Tank
Offering a fellowship, with a subtle expectation to influence India’s stance.
Domestic Supporters
Advocating for India’s position on equity and differentiated responsibilities.
Global Community
Seeking a unified global response to climate change.
Future Generations
Interested in long-term sustainable development and a balanced approach to climate change.
A. Ethical Issues Faced as a Public Servant Representing National Interests:
- Integrity vs. Diplomatic Pressure: As a public servant, your primary duty is to uphold national interests and represent India’s stance on climate change. However, there is growing international pressure to shift India’s position, creating a conflict between national sovereignty and global diplomacy.
- Public Service vs. Personal Gain: The offer from the international think tank presents a potential conflict of interest, as accepting it might compromise your objectivity and lead to decisions based on personal benefit rather than national interest.
- Global Ethical Responsibility vs. National Development: Balancing global responsibility for climate change with India’s right to development presents an ethical challenge. India’s historical contribution to emissions is minimal, and rapid carbon reduction could hinder its growth and access to basic infrastructure.
B. Conflict Between Global Ethical Responsibilities and National Development Goals:
- Global Ethical Responsibility: The global community is facing a climate crisis that requires immediate, coordinated action. However, the ethical principle of equity supports the idea that developed countries, with a larger historical contribution to emissions and greater financial capacity, should bear a larger share of the responsibility.
- National Development Goals: India’s priority must be its developmental needs, especially for millions still lacking access to basic infrastructure.
- Rapid emission reductions could compromise economic growth and further deepen inequalities.
- Balancing Interests: A solution lies in differentiated responsibilities. India can advocate for flexible targets based on its developmental trajectory, demanding greater contributions from developed nations while committing to gradual, equitable climate action that doesn’t hinder its growth.
C. Response to the Fellowship Offer:
- Ethical Dilemma: The offer from the think tank presents a conflict of interest. While the fellowship is prestigious, its implication—shifting India’s stance on climate change—may undermine your ethical responsibility to serve India’s best interests.
- Recommendation: You should decline the offer or at the very least, disclose the situation to appropriate authorities within the government. Transparency is critical in maintaining public trust and integrity in international negotiations.
- Ethical Values: Integrity, accountability, and public trust should guide your response. The principles of conflict of interest and loyalty to the nation should prevail over personal advancement.
- Ethical Values and Diplomatic Principles to Guide Negotiations:
- Equity and Justice: Uphold the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), ensuring that developed nations take more responsibility in addressing climate change due to their historical emissions and greater resources.
- Transparency and Accountability: Be transparent in your dealings, especially regarding external offers that could influence your decisions. Public interest should always be prioritized over personal gain.
- Long-Term Sustainability: Advocate for a balanced approach that considers both climate action and development needs, ensuring that India’s growth trajectory is not compromised while contributing to global climate goals.
Conclusion:
As John Rawls asserted, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.” The senior officer’s decisions should align with Rawls' principle, ensuring that equity is at the heart of climate negotiations and that both global and national responsibilities are fairly balanced for the benefit of all.
