UNGA overwhelmingly endorsed an ICJ advisory opinion that states have legal obligations under international law to tackle climate change.
141 countries voted in favour, eight opposed and 28 abstaining, including India.
The US, Saudi Arabia and Russia led the opposition.
The United States, along with seven other countries, opposed a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution backing an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that nations have a legal obligation to address climate change, while India was among 28 countries abstaining from the 141-8 vote.
The resolution, tabled by the Pacific island nation Vanuatu, endorses the ICJ’s July 2025 advisory opinion, which states that governments are obligated under international law to tackle global warming and that failure to act could expose states to liability and reparations claims. While the opinion is non binding, it is already being cited in climate litigation globally and referenced in climate-related judicial rulings.
The ICJ opinion provides legal guidance on countries’ obligations to tackle climate change and prevent harm to vulnerable nations and communities. While non-binding, it states that failure to act on climate change could trigger legal consequences, increasing pressure on governments to accelerate action on adaptation, fossil fuel subsidies, environmental assessments and international climate commitments.
The countries opposing the resolution included the United States, which is the world’s biggest historical emitter, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Iran, Yemen, Liberia and Belarus. Countries abstaining included India, Turkey, Qatar and Nigeria. Among those voting in favour were Australia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
The abstentions highlighted divisions over how climate obligations should be legally enforced and concerns among emerging economies over the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, under which historical emitters are expected to bear a larger burden for climate action and liability.
According to the interpretation accompanying the vote, abstaining countries effectively acknowledged the science and urgency of climate change but stopped short of endorsing legal liabilities that could arise from the ICJ opinion. Many countries also expressed concerns that embedding legal obligations through court opinions could disrupt the negotiated framework of the Paris Agreement.
Experts said the ICJ opinion could significantly reshape climate governance and environmental regulation. Jeffrey Qi, a policy advisor with International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)’s Resilience Program, said climate adaptation, long viewed as a domestic policy choice, has now been recognised by the ICJ as a binding obligation under climate treaties and customary international law. “Countries continue to have discretion over how adaptation is planned and implemented based on their unique risk and national circumstances, but they must demonstrate they have exercised due diligence to prevent and address foreseeable climate harm,” Qi said in IISD’s five-part series analysing the ruling.
This, Qi added, included enacting adaptation measures in a timely manner, relying on the best available science and accounting for climate-related human rights risks, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Natalie Jones, a senior policy advisor in IISD’s Energy Program, said environmental impact assessments, or EIAs, are a critical policy tool for evaluating the environmental consequences of development projects and balancing competing policy goals. “The ICJ ruled that end-use emissions from burning extracted fossil fuels must be considered in EIAs,” Jones said, noting that the advisory opinion aligns with recent rulings by the United Kingdom Supreme Court and the European Free Trade Association Court.
According to Jones, the impact of the ICJ ruling has already been reflected in at least two national and regional court judgments within six months of the opinion, particularly regarding the need to calculate anticipated downstream and Scope 3 emissions from new oil field developments. “To avoid increased legal risk, states should modify relevant laws, regulations, forms and guidance to ensure all downstream and Scope 3 emissions are accounted for,” she said.
An Associated Press report in February said the Trump administration had urged countries to press Vanuatu to withdraw the resolution.
Ahead of the vote, Odo Tevi, Ambassador of Vanuatu to the United States of America, said: “We should be honest with one another about why this matters. It matters because the harm is real and it is already here, along our islands and coastlines, for communities facing drought and failed harvests.”
For decades, Pacific island nations have warned about existential threats posed by sea level rise. In Tuvalu, where the average elevation is only 2 metres above sea level, more than a third of the population has applied for climate migration visas to Australia, though only limited numbers are accepted each year. Scientists project that much of the country could be underwater during high tide events by 2100.
In Nauru, the government has begun selling passports to wealthy foreigners to generate revenue for potential relocation efforts linked to climate impacts.