Author: Aditi Shetye, Lead of Strategic Litigation, World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ)

As introduced in CLII’s earlier post on this subject, Vanuatu has tabled a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to endorse and operationalise the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. This piece builds on that introduction by offering a fuller account of the resolution’s background, content, and present urgency, drawing from remarks made at the CLII-WYCJ webinar held on 14 April 2026.

A Movement Before It Was a Case

The ICJ Advisory Opinion, delivered unanimously on 23 July 2025, did not emerge solely from within the formal corridors of international diplomacy. It was, from its earliest conception, a movement. Pacific Islands law students, moved by their lived realities and the existential threat their communities face, dreamt up the idea of taking the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court. What began as a classroom assignment became one of the most participatory and consequential proceedings in the history of the ICJ.

The proceedings were historic not only in their outcome but in their character. Countries from the Global South and the majority, often absent from such processes, participated at unprecedented levels. Frontline nations were represented by their own national lawyers, diplomats, youth leaders, and community voices rather than by law firms insulated from the realities of climate harm. Several delegations appeared before the Court for the first time. Some States ceded time to youth leaders from the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and the World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ) to speak directly to the Court. This opening up of international law, in both its processes and its substance, profoundly shaped the outcome.

The Advisory Opinion affirmed what science has long established and what frontline communities have always known: climate action is not a matter of political preference. It is a legal obligation. The Court confirmed that States must act with stringent due diligence to prevent and remedy significant climate harm, in line with principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, and cooperation. Crucially, the Court’s findings are already appearing in national courts in Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, the American Commission, the African Court of Peoples and Human Rights, demonstrating that the Opinion’s legal authority is already in motion.

What the Resolution Does and Does Not Do

The Vanuatu resolution, now in its final form and open for co-sponsorship, pursues three overarching objectives: first, to fully and unreservedly welcome the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion; second, to strengthen climate action in line with the legal obligations it clarifies; and third, to advance the operationalisation of those obligations through concrete multilateral mechanisms.

It is essential to be precise about the scope and purpose of the resolution. The resolution does not reopen the Advisory Opinion, nor does it create new legal obligations. It does not duplicate the work of the UNFCCC or other existing climate fora. Rather, it serves as a bridge between legal clarity and political implementation, and between the Court’s authoritative findings and the multilateral system’s collective responsibility to act upon them.

Concretely, the resolution welcomes the Advisory Opinion as an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law and calls upon all States to comply with their obligations thereunder, including the stringent duty of due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system, the duty to cooperate in good faith, and the obligation to respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights. It urges States to implement measures consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, including by transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It also affirms critical legal protections for small island developing States, including the continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise and the stability of maritime zone delimitations notwithstanding physical changes resulting from sea level rise. On accountability, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to submit a report to the General Assembly’s eighty-second session on ways to advance compliance with the Court’s findings, taking into account gaps in multilateral efforts to address climate harm. It further decides to place a follow-up to the Advisory Opinion on the agenda of the eighty-third session, ensuring that implementation remains a standing item of political attention at the UNGA.

The text reflects compromises arrived at through several months of at least 11 rounds of informal consultations in New York. While early drafts included more specific operational provisions, such as a climate reparations register, the final text takes a more measured approach, tasking the Secretary-General with assessing options and reporting back to Member States. Even so, a broadly co-sponsored resolution would carry significant political and normative weight, elevating the Advisory Opinion within national and international legal systems, climate negotiations, and accountability frameworks.

Timeline and the Urgency of the Moment

The final text of the resolution was made public on 2 May 2026 and is now open for co-sponsorship on the E-Delegates portal. The vote is expected on 20 May 2026. This is an extremely narrow window, and the coming days are decisive.

Co-sponsorship signals affirmative political alignment, and a geographically diverse group of co-sponsors strengthens both the likelihood of adoption and the resolution’s political authority. The previous UNGA resolution requesting the Advisory Opinion was co-sponsored by 132 States and voted unanimously, and the resolution was passed with consensus. The current resolution operates in a more contested geopolitical environment, making co-sponsorship and a strong vote all the more important.

Civil society, legal practitioners, and engaged communities have a vital role in these final days, pressing governments to move from rhetoric to action and to match their public commitments to science and law with their conduct at the United Nations.

The Court has spoken. The law is clear. What remains is political will and the collective courage to act upon it.

---

This piece is based on the author’s remarks at the CLII-WYCJ webinar on Vanuatu’s Draft Resolution to Implement the ICJ Advisory Opinion, held on 14 April 2026. The webinar recording is available here.