In May 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution endorsing the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on States’ obligations with respect to climate change. The resolution marks an important milestone in international climate governance by reaffirming that climate action is no longer merely a matter of political commitment or voluntary international cooperation, but is increasingly understood as a legal obligation under international law.
New international obligations to address climate change
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), based in The Hague, issued its long-awaited advisory opinion following a request initiated by the Pacific island State of Vanuatu. The initiative was particularly significant given that Vanuatu faces an existential threat as a result of climate change, making swift and effective global climate action a matter of national survival.
In its advisory opinion, the Court concluded that expanding fossil fuel production and the resulting climate-related harm may, under certain circumstances, constitute an internationally wrongful act. Beyond reinforcing States’ obligation to adopt and implement more ambitious climate policies, this finding is particularly significant because it opens the possibility that countries disproportionately affected by climate change could seek compensation from States that have made substantial contributions to global warming.
This primarily concerns countries that industrialised earliest (predominantly today’s developed economies) which have emitted large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the past two centuries and therefore bear a significant degree of historical responsibility for climate change. As a Member State of the European Union, Hungary is also part of this group.
The UN General Assembly resolution prepared on the basis of the Court’s advisory opinion was ultimately supported by 141 countries. The initiative was championed primarily by Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Latin American countries and the Member States of the European Union. Several major fossil fuel-exporting countries (including the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia) opposed the resolution, expressing concern that the Court’s non-binding advisory opinion could, over time, give rise to legally enforceable obligations, financial liabilities and new accountability mechanisms.
The resolution also reinforces several key directions for international climate policy. It encourages States to accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, triple global renewable energy capacity, transition away from fossil fuels, and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. In addition, the UN Secretary-General has been requested to prepare a report outlining how implementation of States’ climate-related obligations under international law could be further advanced.
The question of responsibility
Beyond its potential financial and legal implications, the political significance of the decision lies in further strengthening the principle of climate justice within the international system. Although the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, it is expected to serve as an authoritative point of reference in future proceedings before both national and international courts, while increasing pressure on governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies.
At the same time, the debate highlights the persistent geopolitical fault lines that continue to shape international climate politics. Developed and developing countries remain deeply divided over who should bear historical responsibility for climate change and who should finance adaptation measures and responses to climate-related loss and damage.
The resolution also leaves unresolved the increasingly outdated distinction between developed and developing countries established in 1992 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Against this backdrop, India abstained from the vote, arguing that the resolution failed to place sufficient emphasis on the financial obligations of developed countries, despite the fact that India itself has since become one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.
It is also important to recognise the pivotal role played by Small Island Developing States and young climate activists throughout this process. The initiative originated within Pacific student movements before gradually advancing to the International Court of Justice and ultimately reaching the United Nations General Assembly.
For many of the countries involved, this is far more than an abstract legal debate — it is a matter of survival. Rising sea levels, increasingly frequent extreme weather events and the degradation of ecosystems are already causing profound and immediate impacts on their societies and economies.
Although the General Assembly’s resolution will not, by itself, resolve the climate crisis, it sends a powerful signal that a substantial majority of the international community increasingly regards climate protection as both a legal and a moral obligation, despite attempts by a small but vocal minority to promote a different narrative.
Moreover, although the Court’s advisory opinion is not directly enforceable, the position adopted by the world’s highest judicial body establishes a landmark legal precedent. It is likely to encourage national and also European courts to take a more assertive approach in holding governments and major corporations accountable for insufficient climate action. One of the defining questions for the coming years will therefore be whether this growing political and legal support can be translated into concrete policies, increased climate finance and effective accountability mechanisms.
Cover photo: Debsuddha Banerjee / Climate Visuals Countdown
