The UN General Assembly (UNGA) on May 20 adopted a resolution [6] enshrining the duty of member states to protect the global climate system by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The resolution calls upon states to comply with the obligations set out by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), giving legal force to the non-binding advisory opinion [7] issued by the UN high court in July 2025. Pursuant to the UNGA resolution, countries now have a duty under international law to take all possible steps to avoid contributing to climate change.
Vanuatu, in collaboration with other Pacific island nations, drafted the proposed resolution [11] earlier this year, urging countries to consider the impacts their greenhouse gas emissions have on small nations facing the brunt of the climate crisis. These nations are among those facing the largest burden of climate change [12], such as extreme weather events, crop failure, and sea level rise, despite their lack of a significant contribution to global warming.
However, following negotiations amongst the states, the text of Vanuatu's resolution was altered significantly. Notably missing from the adopted draft was the "International Register of Damage [13]" provision, which would have created the duty to maintain a "comprehensive and transparent record" of evidence of damage attributable to climate change.
Nevertheless, under this resolution, states may be required to compensate injured nations for any damage they contribute to in violation of ICJ climate obligations.
In a statement after the vote, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated that those contributing the least to climate change are "paying the largest price" for its effects. He also indicated the need to transition away from fossil fuels, stating:
The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principle driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.
The resolution's text also affirms that states need to do their part to keep global temperatures from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius, a target set out by the Paris Climate Agreement [14] that would require a rapid decline [15] in fossil fuel emissions to achieve.
Despite an overwhelming 141 votes to adopt the resolution, eight countries [16] were in opposition, including three countries included in the list of 10 largest fossil fuel emitters globally [17]: the United States, Russia and Iran. Also voting against were top oil producers such as Saudi Arabia.
Following the resolution's adoption, Deputy Representative of the United States to the United Nations Tammy Bruce issued a highly critical statement [18] opposing the resolution and challenging its legality. Bruce said that the ICJ's "unfounded" view that states have a legal duty to prevent global transboundary harm is legally incorrect. He also rejected the notion that "climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions" as politicized and alarmist.
In the US, the Trump administration has vocally opposed the idea that climate change is a serious global issue, and has continued to roll back climate protections [19] within the country.Following Vanuatu's proposed resolution, the administration pressured [20] the small nation to withdraw its draft due to its potential to "pose a major threat to US industry."
In spite of the pushback from major emitters, Guterres described the resolution's adoption as a victory for the planet, calling it an advance for climate justice and for holding states accountable for their actions.
From JURIST [21], May 22. Used with permission.
Note: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issed [22] a similar ruling last year. See our podcast on the ICJ and IACHR rulings, "Meanwhile, the planet is dying…. [23]"
