Listen to this article
Average 4 minutes
The audio version of this article was created by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations may occur. We are working with our partners to continuously review and improve the results.
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted 141-8 to adopt a resolution supporting the international court's view that countries have a legal responsibility to address climate change, with the largest country in world history, the United States, among those opposed.
Canada, which sponsored the resolution, was among the countries that voted for the group.
The decision, brought by the Pacific island of Vanuatu, confirms the opinion of the July 2025 advice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that countries have a responsibility to reduce the use of fossil fuels and to deal with global warming.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the vote, in which 28 countries abstained, emphasized that governments have a responsibility to protect citizens from the “escalating climate crisis.”
“I welcome the adoption of the General Assembly's decision on the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change – a strong confirmation of international law, climate justice, science and the responsibility of states to protect people from the growing climate crisis,” he said on the X website.
Although not legally binding, the opinion is expected to be cited in climate-related legal cases around the world.
Lee-Anne Sackett, is the special envoy for climate justice for Vanuatu, the Pacific island nation that brought the case and decision to the fore. He told CBC's As It Happens on Thursday that the vote was a “very difficult” moment.
“To be honest, I was pumping with adrenaline the whole time,” she said. “It was a really big relief.”
The International Court of Justice has ruled that countries that fail to take measures to protect the world from climate change may be in violation of international law, and countries that are harmed by their consequences may be entitled to compensation.
Dissenters, bededa
The United States joined Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Iran, Yemen, Liberia and Belarus in opposing the resolution. The COP31 climate conference hosted by Turkey, India, and oil producers Qatar and Nigeria were among those who rejected it.
China, the world's leading power now, voted to agree with him.
The Trump administration has withdrawn the US from the Paris climate accord and other major environmental agreements, and has pursued policies to boost fossil fuel production.
“The resolution embodies the wrong political demands of fossil fuels,” said US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce.
What it means for Canada and the world
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, which led the ICJ's opinion campaign, called the vote a commitment to “make it real.”
Sackett said it holds countries accountable for their climate pledges and creates legal consequences for failing to do things like regulate fossil fuel companies: “It changes, really, the narrative around this.”
Patricia Galvao Ferreira, associate professor and member of the Marine and Environmental Law Institute at Dalhousie University, told CBC Halifax Information Morning on Tuesday, before the vote, that the decision is a statement that the international community is “taking a historic turn.” [ICJ] to rule firmly and intend to turn it into action.”
He added that while it has no direct consequences, it “puts Canada at a disadvantage,” given its fossil fuel subsidies and recent actions to end the consumer carbon tax and the oil and gas sector.
The federal and provincial governments are facing a number of lawsuits accused of failing to comply with climate-related regulations or to protect Canadians from the effects of climate change.
Ferreira said the UN vote would give more power to those who oppose the government's climate-related decisions.
Ecojustice is a climate advocacy group involved in some of those cases. Charlie Hatt, the group's director of climate programs, told CBC's Metro Morning before the vote that Canadian courts “obey international law in considering the content of our constitutional rights.”
He added that it is also possible for countries like Vanuatu to take countries like Canada to the ICJ to plan to increase their oil production.
Hatt said one possible outcome of the vote is that Canada will begin to see international pressure on fossil fuel phasing out “and begin to, you know, take that into account in terms of its domestic planning and implementation.”
