The doctrine of climate justice is gaining ground in the world of international politics. And in this case, led by a small Pacific island state, Vanuatu. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on Wednesday, May 20, in favor of an agreement to implement strong measures to mitigate climate change, despite diplomatic efforts by the United States to have the measure withdrawn. The resolution was driven by Vanuatu and twelve other countries and seeks to implement the obligations for States established last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding climate change.
Read more The U.S. labels Raúl Castro a murderer and considers him the great economic plunderer of the island
The global body, composed of 193 members, approved a non-binding resolution that supports the historic advisory opinion expressed by the UN’s highest court, issued last July, which classifies countries’ climate inaction as a violation of international law.
“The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has responded,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “This is a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of States to protect the population from the growing climate crisis,” added Guterres.
The International Court of Justice sets the path
The text reflects the commitment and adherence of the United Nations regarding the advisory opinion expressed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based in The Hague. States therefore have the obligation to take measures to implement treaties to protect the climate, and industrialized nations are legally committed to leading the fight in this field.
The vote was 141 in favor, 8 against, and 28 abstentions. The United States, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—some of the largest oil producers and main greenhouse gas emitters—opposed the measure. Climate change is mainly due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas.
The text includes adopting a national climate action plan to limit the global temperature increase to less than 1.5 ºC, the gradual elimination of subsidies for the exploration, production, and exploitation of fossil fuels; and urging those who violate the regulations to provide “full reparation” for damages.
Also read
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate set the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 ºC relative to the pre-industrial era, that is, since the mid-19th century. However, scientists state that even in the most optimistic scenario, this temperature threshold will be greatly exceeded.
Lowered proposals
The UN resolution initially included much stronger language, in line with that expressed by the International Court of Justice, which requested the creation of an International Damage Registry to document evidence and claims, but it was removed after nearly a dozen consultations to gain broader support.
On Wednesday, Tammy Bruce, the United States Deputy Ambassador to the UN, harshly criticized the measure once again, calling it “highly problematic.” She stated that Washington has serious legal and political concerns despite modifications to the draft. “The resolution includes inappropriate political demands related to fossil fuels and other climate issues,” Bruce said before the assembly vote.
But representatives from Vanuatu and other island nations, fearing for their survival due to the impact of climate change, said it was important for the General Assembly to fully support the court’s opinion.
The damage is already real and is here, on our islands and coasts, for communities facing droughts and poor harvests
Odo Tevi
Ambassador of Vanuatu to the UN,
“We must be honest with each other about why this matters,” said Odo Tevi, Vanuatu’s ambassador to the UN, before the vote. “It matters because the damage is real and is already here, on our islands and coasts, for communities facing droughts and poor harvests.” He added: “The States and peoples bearing the heaviest burden are, very often, those who have contributed least to the problem.
In fact, the entire process culminating in this decision was preceded for weeks by attempts by the Trump Administration to derail this UN call.
The United States had demanded that Vanuatu withdraw its UN resolution draft, and indeed Vanuatu had to remove sections of its resolution proposal hoping that a modified version could be approved at the UN.
The original resolution required countries to present a registry of losses and damages they suffer due to global warming, such as storms, floods, and droughts. This damage registry was strongly rejected by the United States, the world’s second-largest carbon emitter, which has long feared legal liability for its emissions, and it has now been discarded.
“It is very frustrating that the Trump administration is actively intervening in markets to stop the phase-out of fossil fuels; that goes beyond what one would expect from a government,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, a few days ago.
U.S. fears
The resolution is not binding, but “it could represent a serious threat to the U.S. industry,” the Trump administration indicated a few weeks ago in guidance sent to U.S. embassies and consulates last month.
Read more How Beijing has managed to go from being a copycat of the West to being the one copied
President Trump sent a very clear message: “that the UN and many nations of the world have greatly strayed from the right path, exaggerating climate change to make it the greatest global threat,” added the U.S. State Department cable.
This opposition, along with that of other major fossil fuel producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia, explains the outcome of the agreement and the opposing votes.
United States burns bridges with everyone
The United States has been torpedoing Vanuatu’s proposal. Its Administration represents the main threat to global climate cooperation overall. Trump has told other world leaders that clean energy is a “scam,” dismissed climate science as a “hoax,” and urged countries to continue relying on fossil fuels that are dangerously warming the planet.
His administration has ignored environmental regulations to promote oil drilling in the United States, while also intervening internationally, such as the U.S. withdrawal from the UN’s fundamental climate treaty, and taking control of the Venezuelan oil industry after the removal of President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump has tried to sabotage global initiatives aimed at reducing emissions that warm the planet, such as a tax on shipping emissions, and has harshly criticized the International Energy Agency for considering the climate crisis in its energy outlook scenarios.
Fulfilling obligations
The final resolution stipulates that UN member countries must fully comply with their obligations under international law regarding climate change, in accordance with the ICJ ruling, and limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels through a phased, rapid, just, and quantified phase-out of fossil fuel production and use.
The text formally reaffirms the conclusions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in The Hague. In this way, governments are urged to align their policies with their legal obligations to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, which includes achieving deep, rapid, and sustained emission reductions, regulating fossil fuel companies, and protecting the right to a healthy environment.
The resolution also requests the UN Secretary-General to present a report in 2027 on how to promote compliance with all obligations related to the Court’s conclusions, thus ensuring continued oversight of governments to fulfill their legal obligations.
Victory with repercussions
The text is an undeniable success for the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which along with a dozen other countries has once again placed the climate agenda on the international stage.
Following this agreement, most assessments emphasize that governments can no longer ignore their legal responsibilities regarding climate protection. On the other hand, Pacific communities achieve an important political success within their strategy for the phased, rapid, and just phase-out of fossil fuels.
Rebecca Newsom, Global Policy Lead at Greenpeace International, stated: “The world’s highest court made it clear that climate action is an irrefutable legal obligation, and today’s outcome shows that governments are increasingly committed to taking measures that reflect this reality.”
Phasing out fossil fuels
According to an extended assessment, it would be logical for countries to take firmer steps toward phasing out fossil fuels. A month ago, a coalition of 57 countries met in Santa Marta, Colombia, to reiterate their commitment to ending dependence on coal, oil, and gas.
Governments must now translate this UN resolution into concrete policies and actions to gradually and equitably eliminate the exploitation, production, and consumption of fossil fuels.
“The transition must be financed with higher taxes on the largest companies and ultra-rich, the world’s biggest emitters, to compensate for their climate damages, along with the international climate finance obligations of Global North countries,” Greenpeace notes.
“The era in which fossil fuel companies make billions while communities face climate disasters and rising living costs must end,” adds this organization.
In July 2025, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion stating that States have legal obligations under international law to take urgent and equitable measures to protect the climate system, including emission reductions, international cooperation, accountability of polluting companies, and prevention of climate damages. The UN General Assembly resolution was expected to strengthen the political and legal weight of the Advisory Opinion in international negotiations, national policy-making, and climate litigation, while increasing pressure on governments to align their actions with their obligation to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.
Read more Illa secures its first budgets after renewing and updating the agreement with Comuns
