On 21 May 2026, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution on the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s landmark advisory opinion on climate change (document A/80/L.65). The resolution provides a much-needed commitment by states to step up climate action and collaborative efforts to address this common concern of humankind.  For policymakers, stakeholders, and experts focused on how the trading system can support the global climate agenda, the resolution should be seized as a crucial reminder of the importance of deepening international climate-related trade cooperation and a vital reference on how to advance collaboratively.

Hailing the resolution as  a “powerful affirmation” of international law, climate justice, and science, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres emphasized  that “[t]hose least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price,” and called on the world to [act faster] and end this injustice.

As one of the states paying the highest price, Vanuatu took the initiative to call for an UNGA resolution on the ICJ’s advisory opinion from the summer of 2025 concerning states’ obligations under international law to address climate change. 

The resolution was sponsored by a broad coalition of developed and developing countries and was ultimately adopted by a substantial majority in the UN General Assembly. In total, 141 states voted in favour; 28 states abstained; and 8 states voted against (Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United States, and Yemen). Last-minute attempts by several opposing and abstaining states to dilute the text of the resolution were ultimately rejected.

Figure 1. Full List of Country Votes

Like other UNGA resolutions, the present resolution is non-binding, but nonetheless carries considerable authoritative weight. Indeed, in its advisory opinion, the ICJ itself relied on previous UNGA resolutions to interpret and clarify states’ obligations to address climate change, including, for example, obligations connected to the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Likewise, the ICJ advisory opinion itself is non-binding but authoritative. As recognized in the resolution, the ICJ advisory opinion is “an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law,” while respect for the ICJ is described as “essential to international law and justice and to an international order based on the rule of law.” In this sense, the ICJ advisory opinion constitutes a non-binding but authoritative clarification of binding obligations on states under international law. 

With the adoption of the resolution, additional authority is conferred on the ICJ’s interpretation of states’ international law obligations to address climate change—described by the resolution as “an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions.” 

Importantly, the resolution explicitly reaffirms the ICJ’s conclusion that the climate regime—that is, the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement—does not exclude the application of other relevant rules of international law. In other words, states’ climate change obligations extend beyond the confines of the climate treaties themselves.

The resolution calls on all states to comply with the international law obligations interpreted and applied by the ICJ, within and outside the climate change regime. For example, all states—including those not party to the Paris Agreement, like the United States—are bound by the customary international law obligation to prevent significant transboundary harm. Under this obligation, the resolution highlights that states must take all means at their disposal, in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBRD-RC), to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause significant harm to the climate system. Similarly, the resolution calls on states to comply with their obligations under the Paris Agreement, again in accordance with CBDR-RC, as well as with their human rights obligations linked to climate change. 

The resolution further emphasizes the ICJ’s findings regarding the continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise resulting from climate change. The resolution also underscores the importance of effective and inclusive decision-making processes, calling for the effective participation of vulnerable groups, such as Indigenous peoples, local communities, people of African descent, women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities. 

Finally, the resolution reiterates that breaches of climate change-related obligations may entail serious legal consequences, which can be triggered by any injured state. The consequences could include full reparation, at least if the conditions for state responsibility are satisfied (including establishing a causal nexus between the violation and the injury).

To meet the above climate change obligations, the resolution affirms, in line with the ICJ’s advisory opinion, that states must take measures to:

1. Collectively keep global warming within 1.5°C (climate target). This climate target is more demanding than the explicit language in the Paris Agreement, which refers to keeping the temperature to well below 2°C, with efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
2. Grounding climate action in the best available science (scientific basis). 

In its advisory opinion, the ICJ explained that states “may” violate their international obligations if they fail “to take appropriate action” with regard to fossil-fuel-related activities, such as “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies.”

Significantly, the resolution seeks to translate these ICJ findings into concrete policy action on the energy transition. In particular, it identifies a number of energy transition-related actions that states are urged to pursue in order to meet the 1.5°C target based on science. The specific actions are as set out in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Energy Transition-Related Actions States Are Urged to Pursue to Meet the 1.5°C Target

Recognizing climate change as a common concern, the ICJ stressed in its advisory opinion that “[c]o-operation is not a matter of choice for States but a pressing need and a legal obligation.” Echoing related ICJ findings, the resolution reiterates that this duty “requires sustained and continuous forms of cooperation by States.” 

In keeping with this obligation, the resolution expresses a determination to “translate the [ICJ’s] findings into enhanced multilateral cooperation and accelerated climate action at all levels.” The resolution acknowledges that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are the “primary international, intergovernmental forums for negotiating the global response to climate change,” without closing the door to other forums. Indeed, the adoption of the resolution by the UN General Assembly itself illustrates that climate governance and cooperation extend beyond the formal climate treaty regime alone.

A Call to Cooperate in the Trade Regime 

The resolution should be seen as a call to reinvigorate efforts by states to deepen cooperation across a range of climate-related policy areas, including those that are trade-related. Within the international trade regime, cooperation efforts are advancing through multilateral, plurilateral, and bilateral processes. These include WTO-based forums such as the Committee Trade and Environment (CTE), the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD), and the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform (FFSR) initiative, as well as plurilateral initiatives outside the WTO, such as the Coalition of Trade Ministers on Climate, and the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS).

In the context of the energy transition, the specific commitments reflected in the UNGA resolution—including commitments relating to fossil fuel subsidy reform, renewable energy expansion, and the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems—should spur and intensify cooperative efforts within both WTO and non-WTO forums. This is particularly relevant in initiatives such as the CTE, FFSR, and TESSD, as well as the ACCTS, which contains the first explicit international disciplines on fossil fuel subsidies.

A Call to Cooperate in the Climate Regime

Equally, in the climate sphere, the resolution, including the energy transition commitments, should spur discussions in multilateral fora—in particular the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement—and complementary initiatives, such as the follow-up process to the Santa Marta conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels (TAFF). In particular, the next TAFF conference in 2027—with the science pre-conference in Ireland followed by the high-level conference in Tuvalu—offers an important opportunity to further operationalize energy transition commitments. As with the Santa Marta process, this effort should be guided by the best available science and informed by inclusive dialogue involving policymakers, experts, affected communities, and other relevant stakeholders, including vulnerable groups.

Finally, the resolution, including the energy transition commitments, should catalyse new initiatives aimed at bridging the trade and climate regimes. Examples include the Climate and Trade Dialogues, the first of which will take place at the 64th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) in June 2026, and the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade (IFCCT), which was launched at COP30 by the Brazilian COP Presidency. 

With the adoption of the resolution, the ICJ’s legal interpretations are turned into actionable policy commitments for states—an outcome that was not achieved at COP30. To further advance policy action, the resolution tasks the UNSG with drafting a report outlining pathways to advance compliance with the obligations clarified by the ICJ. The report must be submitted for the UNGA’s 82nd session in September 2027.

The report should take into account the best available science, as well as any possible gaps in multilateral efforts to address the adverse effects of climate change, while avoiding any implication on state responsibility and ensuring complementarity with existing multilateral efforts, including under the climate change regime. 

The journey therefore continues, both within and outside the climate change treaty regime.

----------

Dominic Coppens is Senior Fellow, Trade, Climate, and Sustainable Development, TESS; and Professor of International Economic Law at Maastricht University, where he co-directs the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation (IGIR).

-----

Synergies is an online platform featuring expert commentary and opinions curated by TESS. We foster dialogue and incubate ideas on how to shape a global trading system that effectively addresses global environmental crises and advances sustainable development. Synergies draws on perspectives from leading experts and practitioners across policy communities from around the world. We cultivate solutions-oriented policy analysis for a sustainable future.

The Executive Editor is Fabrice Lehmann.

Disclaimer

Any views and opinions expressed in Synergies are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of TESS or any of its partner organizations or funders.

License

All of the content on Synergies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. This means you are welcome to adapt, copy, and share it on your platforms with attribution to the source and author(s), but not for commercial purposes. You must also share it under the same CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

If you would like to reuse any material published here or if you have any other question related to Synergies, send an email to Fabrice Lehmann.