The resolution was introduced by the cyclone‑battered Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, backed by a “core group” of 17 countries from various regions. It focuses on the adverse impacts of climate change on small island developing states and on climate justice. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the United Nations’ principal judicial organ. Although its advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant legal authority and moral weight.
Speaking ahead of the vote, UN Secretary‑General António Guterres emphasized the importance of the Court’s advisory opinions. “If and when given, such an opinion would assist the General Assembly, the UN and Member States to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs,” he said. He highlighted the latest climate science, released this month, which confirms that humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the past 200 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report further shows that limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre‑industrial levels is still achievable, but time is running out.
Guterres stressed that now is the time for climate action and climate justice. “The climate crisis can only be overcome through cooperation—between peoples, cultures, nations, generations. But festering climate injustice feeds divisions and threatens to paralyze global climate action,” he warned. Vanuatu’s Prime Minister, Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau, said ambition toward the 1.5‑degree target “is still far from what is needed,” and an ICJ advisory opinion could provide clarity that would benefit global efforts and boost cooperation. He noted that the final text of the resolution resulted from lengthy consultations and deliberations, and he highlighted the important role played by young law students in the Pacific who inspired the initiative.
“The intense and engaged negotiations with the core group as well as with a broader UN membership indicate the importance of this initiative and the collective desire to address the climate crisis,” Kalsakau said. “This is not a silver bullet, but it can make an important contribution to climate action, including by catalyzing much higher ambition under the Paris Agreement,” he added, referring to the 2015 global treaty on climate change.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warmly welcomed the “landmark resolution.” He said an ICJ advisory opinion “could be an important catalyst for the urgent, ambitious, and equitable climate action needed to stop global heating and to limit and remediate climate‑induced human rights harms.” He also praised the resolution’s “clear recognition of the relevance of action today for the generations to come.” The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has extensively documented the human‑rights impacts of climate change and outlined the obligations of states and other actors. “States have obligations to mitigate and adapt to—and address loss and damage resulting from—climate change,” Türk said. “We look forward to sharing this expertise in this highly significant process before the International Court of Justice.”
Comments are closed for this story.