Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
With the support of 141 countries, resolution approved at the UN General Assembly reinforces unanimous opinion of the International Court of Justice, driven by Pacific students and Vanuatu, and increases diplomatic pressure on governments regarding legal obligations related to climate.
141 countries approved in May 2026, at the United Nations General Assembly, a resolution that reinforces the legal duty to protect the climate, following a campaign initiated by Pacific students and taken by Vanuatu to the International Court of Justice.
How the Pacific brought the climate agenda to the UN
The vote consolidated a path initiated far from diplomatic centers. The Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, a student-led organization, began mobilization to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on climate and law.
Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation exposed to rising sea levels and intense storms, took up the cause at the United Nations. Under pressure from powers to withdraw the resolution, the country maintained the initiative.
-
400 km from Earth, China will plant rice in space for the first time in history in two consecutive generations to test if the grain survives outside the planet.
-
Chinese scientists create a material inspired by penguins that absorbs 94.5% of solar energy in the cold, reflects more than 90% of light in the heat, and also promises to reduce energy consumption in buildings without extra electricity.
-
Balloon the size of a stadium spends 25 days alone over Antarctica at nearly 37 km altitude and returns with data on cosmic antimatter that may reveal one of the rarest clues ever sought about the existence of dark matter.
-
The sea has stopped just warming and has started pushing storms towards the continent: marine heatwaves are already entering the path of up to 25% of extreme coastal rains and can increase storms by 30%, worsening floods on the coast.
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous opinion. The court clarified that addressing the climate crisis is a legal duty based on international law, not a commitment conditioned by political convenience.
Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, described the vote as “a turning point in accountability for climate damage.” The campaign showed how smaller countries influence international law.
Decision affirmed climate responsibility
The opinion recognized that limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius remains the central goal of climate action. It also indicated that customary obligations reach all countries, even outside UN climate treaties.
The Court stated that States have a duty to reduce emissions, including regulating private actors within their territories. Thus, the discussion advances from public policy to corporate responsibility.
Another point was the indication that the continuous expansion of fossil fuel production could constitute an international wrongful act. Climate change was described as a planetary existential problem.
Resolution turns opinion into diplomatic pressure
The resolution approved in May 2026 seeks to give operational weight to the opinion. The text calls for States to fulfill international obligations clarified by the court and adopt measures aimed at the 1.5 degrees Celsius target.
The document mentions a transition away from fossil fuels and requests the UN Secretary-General to report on ways to promote compliance. The vote ended with 141 votes in favor, 8 against, and 28 abstentions.
Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Yemen voted against. During negotiations, Vanuatu withdrew from the final text the proposal for a global registry for climate loss and damage.
US Opposition and Upcoming Legal Effects
The position of the United States was presented by Tammy Bruce, the country’s deputy representative at the UN. She called the resolution “highly problematic” and contested the legal basis of obligations on transboundary damage.
Bruce rejected mentions of fossil fuels and climate change as a civilizational challenge. Before the vote, the US pressured countries against the resolution and tried to convince Vanuatu to withdraw it.
The resolution is not binding, but it reinforces the persuasive authority of the opinion in national courts. For Joie Chowdhury, from the Center for International Environmental Law, the vote shows global commitment to the rule of law, collective action, and climate cooperation.
Be the first to react!