What Vanuatu’s UN Resolution on the ICJ Climate Opinion Means for the Planet
Six months ago, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark advisory opinion clarifying what international law requires of states when it comes to climate change. For the first time, the world’s highest court set out the legal responsibilities countries hold to prevent climate harm, protect vulnerable communities, and cooperate to address a global crisis.
It was a moment of legal clarity sorely needed in a world that seems to be losing momentum on climate action. Last week, the Government of Vanuatu began circulating a draft resolution at the United Nations General Assembly that could inject new energy into global efforts.
So what is this resolution, and how does it turn legal clarity into collective action?
What the resolution would do
The draft resolution, introduced by Vanuatu and a cross regional core group of countries, does four important things.
First, it formally and unreservedly welcomes the Court’s advisory opinion and calls on states to comply fully with it. That may sound procedural, but it matters. A General Assembly resolution adopted with broad support reinforces the authority of the Court and affirms that its states agree with its legal interpretations. Member states unanimously requested the Court’s opinion. A collective endorsement is the logical and necessary next step.
Second, it calls for strengthened climate action in line with those clarified legal obligations. The Court made clear that states have duties under existing international law to prevent significant harm to other states, regulate activities within their jurisdiction that contribute to climate damage (such as fossil fuels), cooperate internationally, and safeguard the rights of present and future generations. The resolution seeks to ensure that political decisions and national policies are aligned with those legal responsibilities.
Third, it advances the operationalisation of the opinion. In practical terms, this means encouraging coherence between the Court’s findings and ongoing climate processes, domestic laws, and multilateral frameworks. It is not about renegotiating climate agreements or reopening the Court’s conclusions. It is not about litigation or any individual or group of states. It is about embedding the Court’s legal guidance into the systems that shape real world outcomes.
As part of this operationalisation, the draft requests the establishment of an International Register of Damage to serve as an authoritative and transparent record of loss, injury, and harm attributable to climate change. This would provide a structured way to document impacts, strengthen accountability, and inform future legal and policy responses that have already been agreed to, for example Article 8 of the Paris Agreement dealing with loss and damage.
Fourth, the resolution requests that the UN Secretary General report annually on progressin implementing it. This reporting requirement is designed to ensure continued political attention and transparency, and to prevent the opinion from being acknowledged once and then quietly sidelined.
In short, the resolution seeks to bridge the gap between legal principle and practical implementation.
A global effort, not a regional cause
Although initiated by a Pacific island state, the core group behind the draft spans Africa, the Caribbean, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. That breadth underscores a simple reality. Climate change is a shared crisis that demands a shared response grounded in international law.
Informal consultations now underway in New York provide an opportunity for all member states to shape the final text. The goal is a resolution capable of commanding wide support and reinforcing confidence in multilateral cooperation at a moment when it is urgently needed.
Why this moment matters
The past three years have been the hottest on record. Climate impacts are accelerating faster than political responses, and communities everywhere are living with the consequences.
The advisory opinion clarified that climate action is not merely a policy choice. It is a legal obligation. The resolution before the General Assembly offers governments a concrete opportunity to demonstrate that they take that obligation seriously.
Countries are now engaged in negotiations on the text. Those that speak of climate leadership must show it. The Court has provided the guidance. The General Assembly has the opportunity to ensure it is translated into meaningful, measurable action for people and for the planet.
