Nearly a year after the International Court of Justice declared that states have legal obligations to combat climate change, the United Nations General Assembly has thrown its political weight behind the opinion – reinforcing a growing push to turn climate promises into legal accountability.
Passed on Wednesday by the UN General Assembly, the resolution endorses last year’s historic advisory opinion from the (ICJ), which declared that states have legal duties to combat climate change and may face consequences if they fail to do so.
The measure, spearheaded by Vanuatu, was adopted with 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions. Countries opposing the text included the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.
UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres described the resolution as “a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis”.
Although non-binding, the resolution is being hailed as another important step in turning climate promises into legal and political accountability.
Legal obligations
The process began in March 2023, when Vanuatu successfully pushed the General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ on states’ climate responsibilities.
After two years of hearings involving more than 100 countries – the largest participation in the court’s history – the judges issued a unanimous opinion in July 2025, which exceeded many observers’ expectations.
The court concluded that states have “legal obligations” to address climate change, because protecting the climate is indivisible from protecting human rights and ensuring the planet remains habitable.
It also stressed that governments must regulate fossil fuel production and consumption and oversee the actions of private companies operating within their jurisdictions.
The ICJ warned that failure to meet these obligations could be considered unlawful and could potentially expose states to legal claims and demands for compensation.
While advisory opinions are not enforceable, they carry major legal and moral authority and are frequently used in domestic and international litigation.
For Vanuatu and other vulnerable nations, however, obtaining the court opinion was just the beginning.
“This outcome is of paramount importance for the credibility of international law and the multilateral system,” said Vanuatu’s UN ambassador, Odo Tevi.
Speaking before the vote, he reminded delegates that climate damage is already devastating communities around the world.
“The damage is real and already being felt by low-lying islands and coastal areas, by communities facing drought and crop failures, and by those whose homes, incomes and culture are being disrupted by forces they did not set in motion,” he said.
'From Pacific classrooms to The Hague'
The resolution was backed by a coalition of countries including the Netherlands, Kenya, Barbados, the Philippines and Burkina Faso.
Small island developing states played a particularly prominent role, framing the issue not as an abstract environmental debate but an existential threat.
Representing those states, Fiji’s ambassador Filipo Tarakinikini told the Assembly: “When we speak of an existential threat, we are not speaking metaphorically – we are speaking from lived experience.”
“This is a matter of survival, in legal, cultural and civilisational terms,” he added, calling for greater solidarity through adaptation funding, protection of maritime rights and, where necessary, resettlement support.
The vote also marked a major moment for Pacific youth activists, who helped launch the campaign years earlier.
Vishal Prasad, president of the Pacific Islands Students’ Collective on Climate Change, said the resolution represented “a decisive turning point in terms of accountability for climate damage”.
“The journey of this idea, from Pacific classrooms to The Hague and the United Nations, gives us hope that when citizens organise themselves, the world can be compelled to act,” he said.
Focus on fossil fuels
The resolution also revives language on fossil fuels that had largely disappeared from last year’s UN climate summit in Brazil, under pressure from major producers and consumers.
It reaffirms the goal of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and calls for “the phasing out of fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner” to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
The text also urges countries to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies “as soon as possible”.
Those phrases echo the landmark agreement reached at Cop28 in Dubai, which for the first time explicitly referred to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Climate advocates say their reappearance in the UN resolution signals that momentum behind fossil fuel phase-out efforts has not disappeared despite geopolitical tensions, wars and energy market instability.
“This achievement reflects the urgency and the scientific, legal and increasingly political consensus regarding the necessity and benefits of accelerating the transition to a world free of fossil fuels,” said Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law.
Pushback from oil producers
Negotiations over the final text were tense.
An earlier draft proposed creating an international register documenting climate-related losses and damages around the world. Supporters argued that such a mechanism could help quantify destruction suffered by vulnerable countries and communities.
Developed nations, including members of the European Union, resisted the proposal, fearing it could open the door to extensive historical reparations claims. The provision was ultimately removed.
Oil-producing states also attempted to dilute the resolution through last-minute amendments.
The strongest opposition came from the US, which rejected the authority of the ICJ. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Pakistan repeatedly intervened during proceedings in efforts to delay the vote.
For supporters of the resolution, that resistance only reinforced the significance of the initiative.
“This level of resistance and fear among certain states towards a resolution, which merely reiterates obligations, confirms its importance as a force for justice and accountability,” Reisch said.
'A resolution, not a revolution'
The resolution will not force governments to change policy overnight, but supporters argue its real power lies in shaping future negotiations, court rulings and public expectations.
It calls on the UN secretary-general to identify ways to ensure states fully comply with their obligations and to highlight shortcomings where they exist. It also establishes annual follow-up discussions at the General Assembly.
Observers point out that previous ICJ advisory opinions backed by the UN have later translated into concrete political outcomes. One recent example is the return of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius by the United Kingdom, after decades of dispute.
Meanwhile, climate warnings continue to intensify.
Temperatures this week climbed to 48C in parts of India and across the Sahel, with meteorologists warning that heatwaves are becoming longer, more frequent and more severe. The World Meteorological Organization says Europe is warming twice as fast as the global average.
Against that backdrop, supporters of the UN resolution argue that even incremental progress matters.
“It is a resolution, not a revolution,” said Reisch. “But this compromise text signals the political will to continue moving forward.”
This article has been adapted from the original version in French by Géraud Bosman-Delzons.
