Led by the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, a coalition of countries are introducing a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly that could reinforce countries’ legal obligations under international climate laws and treaties.
The resolution would back a July 2025 climate advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice that frames climate commitments as requirements rather than political suggestions and would recommend a U.N. process to document climate-related losses and damage experienced by vulnerable countries and communities.
Overall, experts described the measure as a step toward strengthening the legal framework for climate accountability. The original request for the advisory opinion was passed unanimously by the U.N. General Assembly. In the past week, more than 100 countries have participated in negotiations on the new resolution, and proponents of the measure said they’re aiming to enlist 150 countries as supporters.
As the new draft started circulating, several legal analysts said the resolution could help global efforts to equitably grapple with the climate crisis. They also discussed the challenges of building a broad consensus after a year when global environmental governance, including climate talks, faltered, according to a recent report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
During discussions on the first draft, a coalition of states—including Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States—opposed anything resembling binding language to phase out fossil fuels, or terms that could suggest any financial liability for climate harms.
Such climate obstructionism is documented in research showing persistent efforts to slow and disrupt the growing consensus on the need to shift from oil and gas to renewable energy sources.
Climate justice advocate Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, argued that supporting the court’s advisory opinion would demonstrate that states still value a rules-based system, and lauded the courage of Pacific island youth activists for launching the legal campaign that ultimately led to the advisory opinion.
“This didn’t begin in the corridors of power,” Robinson said. “Young Pacific voices asked a simple but profound question: What does international law require of states when their actions threaten the survival of others? When the law becomes clear, excuses become harder to sustain.”
Robinson warned that some powerful countries are trying to pressure smaller states to weaken the follow-up resolution, and said, “People will be watching this. They know that the United States has tried to bully. Can people resist a bully? I hope so.”
The Associated Press reported on Feb. 13 that the U.S. has been stating its opposition to the resolution to other governments through diplomatic channels. The State Department did not immediately respond to questions, but has stated it opposes measures that could harm U.S. industries.
Legal Turning Point?
Modern climate policy is built on the premise that global problems require shared rules.
European governments have occasionally fought over the details and delayed compliance, but they have generally accepted that climate commitments carry legal weight. European Union Climate Law makes the bloc’s goal of reaching climate neu