UN’s climate crisis vote shows political momentum is growing, say experts

When the UN general assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a landmark climate crisis ruling on Wednesday, the Pacific island of Vanuatu’s prime minister hailed the result as the start of “a new chapter” in climate action.

“The task before all of us now is to translate legal clarity into meaningful action, stronger cooperation, and greater protection for present and future generations,” said Jotham Napat.

The recognition by states that they have a legal responsibility to address climate breakdown by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions, including tackling fossil fuels, could prove a boost for climate diplomacy and litigation, according to experts.

While the international court of justice’s (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion was at the time hailed as a “historic win” for small island states particularly vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis, it has so far proved weak as a diplomatic lever.

To try to help it make a difference on the ground, Vanuatu led negotiations on a new UN resolution, a lengthy process that required numerous compromises.

The final version, co-sponsored by 90 countries, urges states to transition away from fossil fuels in a “just, orderly and equitable manner” to reach net zero by 2050, and to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions as soon as possible”.

But the resolution explicitly does not attribute responsibility to any particular state.

Although the final resolution did not achieve the unanimity Vanuatu had sought, 141 countries voted in favour with 28 abstentions. Eight states voted against it, including some of the world’s biggest producers of oil and gas: the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Belarus, Iran, Israel, Yemen and Liberia.

An oil pump jack in Cisco, Texas. The US was among the eight states who voted against the resolution. Photograph: Mike Stone/Reuters

The advisory opinion has so far had more impact domestically than diplomatically. Harj Narulla, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London who was counsel for Solomon Islands during the ICJ proceedings, said it had already proved transformative for domestic litigation. “This resolution won’t change that, but it does add great political weight behind the opinion which judges take notice of, even if they won’t say it publicly.”

It may also support domestic lawmakers trying to introduce new legislation and setting climate goals. “One of the important spaces where we have already seen uptake of the ICJ’s legal conclusions is in nationally determined contributions,” said Joie Chowdhury, the climate justice and accountability manager at the Center for International Environmental Law. “The resolution can further encourage national climate plans to integrate the advisory opinion’s findings.”

But Narulla said the new resolution was likely to have the greatest influence on climate diplomacy. “The international community is showing that Cop is not the only forum that matters and, if progress stalls there, then climate action will be pursued through the general assembly and in other multilateral spaces.”

Rebecca Newsom, the global political lead at Greenpeace International, said the timing of the vote, following the inaugural fossil fuel phaseout conference in Santa Marta, Colombia, last month and the impact of the energy crisis on the fossil fuel industry, shows “political momentum is clearly growing”.

“Governments must now translate this resolution into tangible roadmaps to equitably phase out fossil fuel exploitation, production and consumption,” said Newsom.

Tuvalu is due to host a meeting of world leaders in October, before the Cop31 global climate talks in Turkey the following month. It has also agreed to co-host the second fossil fuel phaseout conference early next year.

Meanwhile the world’s biggest oil and gas producers remain opposed to any suggestion that they have legal obligations to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. The US, for example, reportedly lobbied to drop the UN resolution altogether. Before the vote, the US ambassador Tammy Bruce criticised the text for singling out “certain groups for preferential treatment” and making “alarmist political statements, such as the idea that climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civilisational proportions”.

Narulla said these votes against did not meaningfully weaken the resolution. “At this point, we expect large fossil fuel producers like the US and Saudi Arabia to oppose any meaningful diplomatic progress on climate change. What’s impressive is that beyond this small group, such an overwhelming majority was secured – including many states wholly dependent on fossil fuels.”

It is worth noting that few states have yet announced specific policies as a result of the advisory opinion, and even some of those voting in favour of the resolution sought to qualify their approval. Australia’s ambassador to the UN, James Larsen, said “states continue to hold differing views on the scope and content of some of those obligations”.

Some aspects of the resolution were less controversial, including a recognition that nations should maintain their statehood and maritime boundaries even if their land disappears underwater.