After the United Nations’ top court issued its advisory opinion last July, the General Assembly on Wednesday endorsed the court’s central message: countries that fail to protect the planet from climate change are violating international law, according to the International Court of Justice. The vote came despite recent diplomatic efforts by the United States to prevent the measure from moving forward, and it underscored the split between many states pressing for stronger climate action and a handful of major emitters voting against.
The nonbinding resolution adopted by the 193-member world body backed “strong action” to limit global warming, endorsing the International Court of Justice opinion and framing climate protection as a legal and policy responsibility. The measure passed 141-8 with 28 abstentions, with the United States among those opposing it, along with Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the General Assembly’s decision in a statement, saying: “The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” and adding that the outcome was “a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis.” The vote also reflected how the General Assembly has been wrestling with the question of how international legal duties should apply to climate harm.
The text includes specific policy calls. It urges countries to adopt national climate action plans to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, phase out subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, production and exploitation, and provide what it calls “full reparation” for damage by states that are in violation of the court’s framing of legal obligations.
The resolution’s backing of the court opinion also came against the backdrop of the Paris climate agreement’s 1.5-degree goal, a benchmark tied to limits on warming since the mid-1800s. The Associated Press report said the resolution’s language was shaped by ongoing negotiations, including changes made to broaden support after earlier drafts drew in stronger court-backed terms.
According to the Associated Press report, the resolution initially included stronger language referencing the advisory opinion’s call for establishing an “International Register of Damage” to record evidence and claims, but that language was removed after nearly a dozen consultations. The change aimed to increase the chances that the measure would win enough support in the General Assembly.
The push for the resolution faced opposition from Washington. The Associated Press reported in February that the Trump administration had been urging other nations to press Vanuatu—the draft’s original sponsor—to withdraw the measure. The report said the State Department had instructed U.S. embassies and consulates that it “strongly objects” to the proposal and that adoption “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
During the Wednesday debate, Tammy Bruce, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reiterated U.S. objections, telling the assembly that the resolution was “highly problematic” and that Washington maintained legal and policy concerns despite changes to the text. Bruce said: “The resolution includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics,” according to the Associated Press report.
Representatives of Vanuatu and other island nations argued that international backing of the court’s opinion mattered for their survival as climate impacts intensify. Odo Tevi, the Vanuatu ambassador to the United Nations, said before the vote that nations 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.”
The General Assembly’s action followed years of frustration among Pacific countries that say they are watching parts of their homelands disappear. The Associated Press report pointed to Tuvalu, where more than a third of the population has applied for a climate migration visa to Australia, and to Nauru, where the government has begun selling passports to wealthy foreigners as revenue for possible relocation efforts.
The vote also drew support from human rights groups that tied the court opinion to broader rights obligations. Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch at the United Nations, said in a statement that endorsing the court ruling “reaffirmed the global commitment to protect human rights,” and that it did so “despite efforts by the U.S. and other oil-producing states to stifle attempts to combat climate change.”