A landmark United Nations resolution on whether countries are obligated to address climate change was adopted Wednesday despite muscular opposition from the United States and other oil-producing nations, including Iran.
The measure, put forward by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, sought political support for an advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. The court, often considered the world’s highest legal authority, determined that governments can be held liable for climate inaction based on existing international law.
The court’s opinion is nonbinding, and so is the resolution adopted Wednesday. But it does signal countries’ commitment to take the court’s opinion forward by acknowledging its ruling. It also provided an example of countries aligning themselves against the United States and a handful of other nations that are opposed to climate action.
“Climate obligations are not political aspirations, they are legal duties,” said Filipo Tarakinikini, Fiji’s representative to the U.N. “Today, this assembly gives that principle the political force it demands.”
The resolution passed with the support of 141 countries during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, including major emitters such as China, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and Australia. Eight countries opposed the measure, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel and Iran. Twenty-eight nations abstained, including Turkey, which is hosting the COP31 climate talks later this year.
“This resolution is highly problematic in calling on states to comply with so-called obligations that are based on nonbinding conclusions of the court on which U.N. member states’ views diverge,” Tammy Bruce, the United States’ deputy representative to the U.N., said in remarks before the vote.
The resolution included “inappropriate political demands” related to fossil fuels and other climate topics, and “amplifies legal errors” in ICJ’s opinion, she said, adding that the measure goes beyond the court’s conclusions “in several concerning ways.”
“The resolution repeats the court’s failure to recognize the climate treaties are the sole source of a state’s climate obligations,” Bruce said.
In 2023, the U.S. under then-President Joe Biden declined to support a different resolution related to the climate case before ICJ. The Biden administration also argued in 2024 that the Paris Agreement was the primary mechanism to hold countries accountable for climate action.
Since then, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris pact and initiated action to leave the broader U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Trump administration’s pushback Wednesday was the latest example of its fierce opposition to global climate measures. Trump has personally attacked a carbon tax that would address climate pollution from shipping and denounced nations for investing in clean energy.
The resolution stemmed from months of negotiation. It calls for countries to comply with their obligations under international law and urges them to act on their Paris Agreement pledges, including a commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. It also highlights the finding by ICJ, that government inaction constitutes an “internationally wrongful act” that may result in “cessation” of the wrongful act or financial reparations.
It calls on the U.N. secretary-general to submit a report that would recommend ways to comply with the court’s finding
The final draft was weaker than the original measure, and several countries that voted to adopt it said they were not in complete agreement. A representative for Canada said the resolution “provided an incomplete and at times inaccurate account of the advisory opinion.”
But for many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, it provided a hearty endorsement of a yearslong campaign to highlight global inaction on climate change and the U.N.’s inability to persuade countries to deliver on their pledges under Paris.
“Today’s vote sends a clear message: multilateralism is not broken, and climate justice will not be blocked by a handful of holdout states,” said Joie Chowdhury, an attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “The ICJ opinion is already reshaping the global legal landscape, and this resolution helps ensure it continues to serve as a catalyst for real-world climate action and accountability.”
Several oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, introduced last-minute amendments aimed at weakening the resolution. A majority of countries voted against those amendments.
Green groups and the youth activists who helped initiate the call for an ICJ opinion also rallied behind the outcome.
“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate,” Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said in a statement. “Communities on the frontlines, like in the Pacific, have been waiting far too long and continue to pay too high a price for the actions of others.”
