From the Advisory Opinion to the UN Resolution: What Changes After 20 May 2026?

Analysis by Erika Moranduzzo, Board Member of the Italian Climate Network

On 20 May 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/80/L.65 with 141 votes in favour, effectively endorsing and operationalising Advisory Opinion No. 187/25 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations in the context of climate change. Far from being a symbolic gesture, the resolution translates the Court’s legal findings into political language, marking a shift “from opinion to action” and strengthening the opinion’s weight within multilateral diplomacy and future climate negotiations.

Behind the Scenes of the New York Negotiations

The vote in New York concluded a process that began in 2023, when the General Assembly formally requested the ICJ’s opinion through Resolution A/RES/77/276. The initiative, led by Vanuatu and inspired by a campaign launched by students from the University of the South Pacific, brought climate justice from the margins of international politics into the core of international law.

Following the Court’s advisory opinion in July 2025, Vanuatu worked to transform the legal findings into a shared political framework within the United Nations General Assembly. To achieve this, it assembled a broad and geographically diverse core group—including Barbados, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia—and facilitated an extensive negotiation process involving seven informal consultations and written submissions from more than one hundred States. The aim was to ensure that the resolution would not be perceived as the agenda of any particular geopolitical bloc.

Negotiations, however, were far from straightforward. Several countries highly vulnerable to climate impacts pushed for language that would give practical effect to the Court’s conclusions, particularly regarding international responsibility and reparations. Others, especially States with significant fossil fuel interests, sought to dilute the text and emphasise an exclusive reliance on the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement framework. These tensions became evident immediately before the vote, when a coalition led by Saudi Arabia introduced four amendments designed to weaken some of the resolution’s strongest provisions. The rejection of all four amendments proved decisive. It prevented the final text from becoming a neutral acknowledgment of the advisory opinion and confirmed the willingness of the majority of States to elevate it into a political and legal reference point.

Voting Patterns and Emerging Divisions

The resolution was adopted with 141 votes in favour, 8 against, and 28 abstentions.

The countries voting against were Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen. Although relatively small in number, this group is politically significant because it includes States that have consistently resisted efforts to strengthen the link between climate obligations, State responsibility and reparations.

Most industrialised countries, including the European Union and its Member States, voted in favour.

Particular attention was drawn to the abstentions of Türkiye and Ethiopia, both of which are expected to play important roles in future UN climate negotiations. Türkiye is bidding to host COP31 in Antalya, while Ethiopia is seeking to host COP32 in Addis Ababa. Their abstentions reflect different concerns regarding the advisory opinion. Türkiye remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels and faces political sensitivities surrounding its energy transition. Ethiopia, as a lower-income country with substantial development and energy-access needs, has expressed concerns that stricter legal obligations may insufficiently account for differences in capabilities and historical responsibility for emissions.

Within UN diplomacy, abstention allows States to avoid blocking a resolution while refraining from fully endorsing its political or legal implications.

Australia presents a more nuanced case. Although it voted in favour, it did not join the list of co-sponsors. The distinction is meaningful: co-sponsorship implies active participation in shaping the text and ownership of its political content, whereas a favourable vote alone leaves greater room for interpretative distance. Australia’s representative, Larsen, explicitly stated that support for the resolution “should not be understood as agreement with every element of the advisory opinion.” This caveat did not go unnoticed among Pacific youth movements, which criticised what they viewed as an ambiguous position from a country that frequently presents itself as a close partner of Pacific Island States and is expected to play a leading role ahead of COP31.

What the Resolution Confirms

The legal significance of Resolution A/80/L.65 lies in its ability to translate the core findings of Advisory Opinion No. 187/25 into operational guidance for States.

The resolution explicitly recognises the advisory opinion as an “authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law,” thereby strengthening its role as a reference point for both States and UN institutions.

Three elements stand out in particular.

1. Reinforcement of Climate Obligations and State Responsibility

The resolution calls upon States to fulfil their climate-related obligations “as identified by the Court,” expressly endorsing the stringent due diligence standard articulated in the advisory opinion.

It further confirms that breaches of these obligations may constitute internationally wrongful acts, giving rise to duties of cessation, reparation, compensation or satisfaction.

Paragraph 4 specifically urges States to:

implement measures aimed at achieving the collective goal of limiting global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, including tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the global annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030; transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 in line with science; and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or support just transitions.

2. Recognition of Statehood in the Context of Sea-Level Rise

Echoing the Court’s opinion, the resolution highlights the need to ensure legal certainty for States threatened by territorial loss due to sea-level rise.

Politically, it takes an important step by reaffirming the continuity of statehood even where severe climate impacts result in significant territorial disappearance.

For many Small Island Developing States, this provision carries profound existential significance, extending well beyond its legal implications.

3. Establishment of a Follow-Up Process

One of the most intensely negotiated provisions concerns implementation.

The resolution requests the UN Secretary-General, “in consultation with Member States,” to prepare a report identifying options for promoting compliance with obligations arising from the Court’s conclusions and assessing potential gaps in multilateral efforts to address climate change impacts under international law.

This outcome falls well short of the original proposal, which envisioned the creation of an International Damage Registry and an International Climate Reparations Mechanism under the authority of the General Assembly, building on ongoing discussions concerning Loss and Damage within the UNFCCC framework.

Nevertheless, it opens the door to future multilateral action aimed at protecting the rights of people harmed by climate change and challenges States concerned about institutional overlap to demonstrate that such efforts would genuinely duplicate existing UNFCCC processes.

Overall Political and Legal Significance

Formally speaking, neither Advisory Opinion No. 187/25 nor Resolution A/80/L.65 is legally binding.

Yet together they are reshaping the post-2025 landscape of international climate law.

The General Assembly’s endorsement gives the advisory opinion a form of universal political legitimacy, making it increasingly difficult for States to dismiss its conclusions as merely abstract legal reflections. For UNFCCC negotiators, the resolution provides a legal baseline that is becoming progressively harder to ignore, particularly regarding standards of due diligence, equity and climate responsibility.

For judges, lawyers and litigants, the resolution signals a growing convergence within the international community around a common set of climate obligations and associated rights. It is likely to be cited in domestic, regional and international climate litigation and may eventually influence future interstate disputes.

At the same time, the negotiations surrounding the resolution reveal a deeper systemic tension. The fact that a small but influential group of States attempted until the final moment to weaken the text demonstrates that climate responsibility—and the prospect of reparations—has become a central fault line in contemporary international law. Increasingly, the debate is no longer simply about climate action, but about the role of international law itself in confronting the structures of a fossil-fuel-based global economy.