º£½ÇÖ±²¥

At the 80th UN General Assembly last week, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres nations to adopt emissions reduction targets for 2035 that far surpass the pledges enshrined in the Paris Agreement. His call came at a key moment, as the International Court of Justice’s latest advisory opinion that states have legal obligations under international law to prevent, mitigate and cooperate when it comes to addressing the harms of climate change.

Although the International Court of Justice’s opinion, which was issued in July, is only advisory, it is still a significant clarification when it comes to international climate obligations. Building on this momentum, Vanuatu and a coalition of climate-vulnerable nations are mobilizing to transform the court’s opinion into binding political action. This can be done through a UN resolution. This raises the question of whether such a resolution is feasible, as well as what the legal and political obstacles might be and the potential benefits it might bring.

The court’s opinion asserted that states’ climate-related duties are not limited to treaty obligations, but also involve the principles derived from international law and human rights. This could provide new leverage for litigants and advocates.

Guterres’ call underscored the urgency of this issue, as global emissions at record highs, with energy-related carbon dioxide emissions surpassing 37 gigatonnes and overall greenhouse gas emissions exceeding 53 gigatonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent in 2023. These statistics demonstrate the significant gap between existing pledges and the reductions necessary to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

A coalition of climate-vulnerable nations is mobilizing to transform the court’s opinion into binding political action

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

For small island states like Vanuatu, which are existentially threatened by rising seas and intensifying storms, the advisory opinion is not simply a legal milestone but a potential lifeline.

But can the UN system move from opinion to actual enforcement when it comes to climate-related issues? Unfortunately, UN General Assembly resolutions do not carry the same binding force as Security Council measures. They are considered more like expressions of political will or guidance. Nevertheless, such resolutions are not fruitless. They can mandate UN organs to align their operations with the International Court of Justice opinion, initiate treaty negotiations and create reporting and review mechanisms. Such resolutions can significantly change governments’ behavior, even without formal legal compulsion, when they are paired with strong diplomatic coalitions and financial commitments.

Unfortunately, the international order appears to be divided on climate ambition. While the EU and a number of vulnerable states support stronger commitments, many large emitters remain cautious or resistant. For example, the US has, under its current administration, signaled its reluctance toward binding global measures. In addition, fossil fuel-dependent economies fear the economic disruption of rapid decarbonization. This divide makes the adoption of a resolution with genuinely binding legal force improbable.

Even without being universally binding, an UNGA resolution endorsing the world court’s opinion would still have important practical effects. From a legal perspective, it could strengthen domestic litigation, empowering courts to cite both the advisory opinion and the UN resolution as authoritative interpretations of state obligations. It could also direct UN agencies and banks to condition funding on climate-aligned policies. And it could lead to coalitions of willing states agreeing to implement binding standards and rules among themselves. Furthermore, it could open new avenues for finance and adaptation support.

But can the UN system move from opinion to actual enforcement when it comes to climate-related issues?

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

It is evident that the obstacles are not easy to overcome. This is because the UNGA cannot single-handedly impose binding legal obligations, while UNSC enforcement is highly unlikely because of the veto power of its members. The capacity to implement also remains uneven. And without significant financial commitments from wealthy nations — in the region of hundreds of billions of dollars every year — developing countries would likely be reluctant to support such a resolution.

Despite these challenges, the effort to operationalize the International Court of Justice opinion through an UNGA resolution represents a good move from the strategic, political and legal perspectives. Even if it did not create binding legal obligations for UN members, it could reshape the normative, political and institutional landscape considering climate issues and governance. Such a resolution would also provide new tools when it comes to accountability. And it could direct international institutions toward more ambitious actions, while facilitating and accelerating the development of legal frameworks.

In a nutshell, when it comes to addressing climate change, transforming the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion into political action via a UN resolution appears to be feasible, effective and desirable. Although such a resolution may not deliver the binding commitments that the most vulnerable states urgently seek, it would significantly advance the global climate agenda as it would consolidate legal norms, mobilize political will and direct financial and institutional resources in the right direction. And considering the scale of the climate crisis the world is facing, such an initiative is critical.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh