The U.N. General Assembly backed a strong course of action to limit climate change on Wednesday, approving a nonbinding resolution that endorses an influential advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice and reaffirming the role of international law in addressing the climate crisis. The vote was 141-8 with 28 abstentions, and it came after diplomatic efforts by the United States to try to prevent the measure from advancing.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking in a statement, said, “The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” and called the outcome “a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis.” The resolution also sought to align national policy with the advisory opinion’s legal framing of climate inaction as a violation of international law.
The draft resolution was supported despite opposition from the United States and several major oil-producing and greenhouse gas-emitting countries. The General Assembly’s dissenters included the United States, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, while others chose to abstain. Climate change, according to the account of the vote, is caused mainly by the burning of coal, oil and gas.
The resolution’s text includes adopting national climate action plans to limit global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, phasing out subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, production and exploitation, and urging countries in violation to provide “full reparation” for damage. The text also reflects how the Paris climate agreement set the goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels, a benchmark summarized in the phrase “1.5 to stay alive.”
The measure was shaped through consultations that removed language that had initially been described as stronger. The resolution originally included tougher wording drawn from the International Court of Justice opinion that called for establishing an “International Register of Damage,” but it was removed after nearly a dozen consultations in order to attract more support.
The United States’ opposition came despite earlier reporting that Washington had urged other countries to press Vanuatu, the draft’s original sponsor, to withdraw the resolution from consideration. In guidance sent to U.S. embassies and consulates, the State Department said the United States “strongly objects” to the proposal and that its adoption “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
At the General Assembly on Wednesday, Tammy Bruce, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, again criticized the measure before the vote. Bruce told the assembly the resolution was “highly problematic” and maintained that Washington still had serious legal and policy concerns despite changes to the draft, saying the resolution “includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics.”
Representatives from Vanuatu and other island nations argued that the court-backed framing mattered because the consequences of climate change are already unfolding in their regions. Odo Tevi, Vanuatu’s ambassador to the United Nations, said before the vote, “We should be honest with one another about why this matters,” adding, “It matters because the harm is real and it is already here, along our islands and coastlines, for communities facing drought and failed harvests.” He also said, “The states and peoples bearing the heaviest burden are very often those who contributed least to the problem.”
Human rights advocates also tied the resolution to protections for people facing climate-related harm. Louis Charbonneau, the U.N. director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that by endorsing the court ruling, the U.N. “reaffirmed the global commitment to protect human rights,” noting it did so “despite efforts by the U.S. and other oil-producing states to stifle attempts to combat climate change.”
The General Assembly’s action follows years of frustration expressed by Pacific states as they watch the impacts of warming threaten home communities. The reporting cited cases including Tuvalu, where more than a third of the population has applied for a climate migration visa to Australia and where much of the country is projected to be underwater at high tide by 2100, as well as Nauru, where the government has begun selling passports to wealthy foreigners as part of preparations for possible relocation.
The vote also underscored how the advisory opinion’s legal status continues to meet resistance among key fossil-fuel producers, even as supporters press for concrete steps. While Wednesday’s resolution remains nonbinding, its provisions—covering national climate action plans, fossil fuel subsidy phaseouts and calls for compensation—place an added spotlight on how governments translate international legal interpretations into policy and financing decisions.