The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a landmark resolution affirming that states have legal obligations to combat climate change, with 141 countries voting in favour, eight against and 28 abstaining. The vote, held on Wednesday, endorsed last year's historic advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — the principal judicial organ of the UN — which declared it "unlawful" for countries to neglect their climate commitments and opened the door to reparations for affected nations. Voting against the resolution was a bloc of major fossil fuel producers and exporters: the United States, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and a small number of others. India, one of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters, abstained. All EU member states, the United Kingdom and China voted in favour.

The resolution was driven by Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation acutely vulnerable to rising seas and intensifying storms — exactly the kind of country that bears the heaviest consequences of climate change while contributing least to its causes. Vanuatu had originally prompted the ICJ process back in 2023, rallying more than 100 states to submit views to the court in what became a record-breaking participation. The resulting ICJ opinion, issued last July, ruled that states are legally bound to protect a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and that failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions could constitute an internationally wrongful act. "The states and peoples bearing the heaviest burden are very often those who contributed least to the problem," Vanuatu's UN ambassador, Odo Tevi, told the assembly before the vote. "The harm is real, and it is already here."

The adopted text welcomes the ICJ opinion as "an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law" and calls on all states to comply with their obligations to protect the climate. It also reaffirms the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and calls for a "just, orderly and equitable" transition away from fossil fuels — language echoing agreements reached at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023 but subsequently weakened under pressure from major producers. UN Secretary-General António Guterres hailed the vote as "a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis."

The resolution was nonetheless significantly diluted during negotiations. A proposed "International Register of Damage" — which would have compiled evidence of losses and harm attributable to climate change, strengthening future reparations claims — was dropped from the final text after opposition from major emitters. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also used procedural tactics to delay the vote and pushed amendments to weaken references to the ICJ opinion as a guiding framework. Washington's representative, Tammy Bruce, objected that the resolution contained "inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels." Behind the scenes, observers noted that the Trump administration was seen as a potential obstacle, with warnings that countries supporting the resolution might face economic pressure.

Despite these compromises, climate advocates described the outcome as a turning point. Because ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding but carry significant legal and moral authority, Wednesday's resolution gives them added political weight — reinforcing their use in national courts, international arbitration and cases between communities and corporations. "This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate," said Vishal Prasad of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, the student-led organisation that first championed the initiative in 2019. Environmental groups in the Netherlands, where the Shell climate case has set legal precedents, noted that the resolution tightens pressure on major polluting companies as well as governments. The resolution does not create new legal obligations — those were already established by the ICJ — but its broad endorsement by the international community is expected to carry substantial weight in courtrooms and diplomatic negotiations for years to come.