The 80th Session of the UN General Assembly in session in New York. 21 May 2026.
Photo: Screengrab / UN Web TV
A United Nations resolution endorsing a landmark ruling on climate change by the world’s highest court passed overwhelmingly at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly on Thursday (New Zealand time).
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered a unanimous advisory opinion that countries have a legal obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and can be held liable for breaching their obligations.
Vanuatu’s government, which proposed the resolution, said in a statement that the UN vote marked “a historic moment” for low-lying states everywhere.
“Today, the international community affirmed that climate change is not only a political and economic challenge, but a matter of law, justice, and human rights,” Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu said.
“For vulnerable countries like Vanuatu, this resolution is deeply significant because it confirms that no State is above its obligations to protect people, future generations, and our planet.”
Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (3rd L) speaks to the media after an International Court of Justice (ICJ) session tasked with issuing the first Advisory Opinion (AO) on states’ legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on 23 July 2025.
Photo: AFP / John Thys
The adopted resolution calls on UN member states to uphold their Paris Agreement obligations and tasks the UN Secretary-General with scrutinising and reporting on the extent to which they do.
More than three years ago, Vanuatu set the wheels in motion for the ICJ opinion on behalf of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), a group of high school and university law students in Port Vila.
The advisory opinion eventually came in July 2025, though it remains non-binding.
It caught the ire of the United States, which reportedly pressured Vanuatu in the UN over the last few months to drop the resolution altogether. The US deputy UN ambassador Tammy Bruce said it contained statements that were “alarmist” and “hyperbolic”.
“The resolution includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and other climate topics,” Bruce said.
“Not only is [the opinion] a legally wrong conclusion, but such an expansive legal rule would impermissibly interfere with each state’s sovereign rights to regulate and manage its own energy policy.”
The final vote count was 141 in favour, 8 against, and 28 abstentions. In voting against the UN resolution on Thursday, the US was joined by Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
New Zealand is among the 141 countries that voted in favour of a resolution recognising and endorsing the ICJ opinion o climate change obligations.
Photo: Supplied / Screenshot
Saudi Arabia in particular, joined by a number of Gulf states, attempted four amendments that would each have watered down the wording of the resolution. One would have replaced the word “comply” with “fulfil”; another would have swapped “urges states” with “further recognises”. Each amendment was voted down.
Vanuatu’s UN Ambassador Odo Tevi told the floor how disappointed he was that those amendments existed at all.
“We are aware that some would prefer this assembly to say less, or nothing at all,” he told the UNGA.
New Zealand’s eleventh-hour support
Dr Justin Sobion, who represented Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the 2025 ICJ hearing, said the UNGA vote is a sigh of relief and another win in the tally for global climate change movements.
“These types of votes are historical votes, they will go down in the records for years to come,” he said.
Dr Sobion said he was very happy to see that New Zealand and other big islands in the Pacific, such as Australia, voted in favour of this resolution.
New Zealand was not among the 60-plus co-sponsoring nations of the resolution, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials would not share New Zealand’s position ahead of the vote.
Speaking with colleagues last night in New York, especially the Vanuatu delegation, Dr Sobion said they were not certain how New Zealand would have voted.
The text in the 2025 advisory opinion outlines potential legal consequences for states, which must take appropriate action to protect the climate system, including fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, fossil fuel subsidies, and licences.
Dr Sobion said this decision sends a strong signal to countries that opposed it.
“I know certain states who have invested in fossil fuels are very much trembling in their boots when they see this type of language being used, especially by the world’s highest court,”
“I think it’s important that you be on the right side of history.”
Waikato University law professor Dr Nathan Cooper considered the uncertainty a product of energy policy that may contravene the ICJ opinion itself.
“[New Zealand] may well now been seen as at odds with what the ICJ has said are state obligations,” he said.
“You’ve got a really reluctant last-minute support coming from government … so I think that does send a clear message. It also lines up with some of the other domestic and international activities and policy settings that we’ve seen from the government in the past couple of years.”
He pointed to decisions such as resuming oil and gas exploration permits, and the now-in-doubt LNG terminal project.
“If we compare with what happened with three years ago, New Zealand was at the forefront of that really large group of co-sponsors. That sent a great message of solidarity with Vanuatu and other Pacific island nations.”
The present New Zealand government’s offical position is to actively promote and expand domestic oil and gas exploration to ensure national energy security – which is a complete reversal of the 2018 offshore exploration ban introduced by the previous administration.
