A small Pacific state has achieved what for years seemed impossible: bringing the climate crisis into international law. On May 20, the United Nations General Assembly approved by 141 votes a resolution supported by Vanuatu that strengthens the principle that governments can be held accountable for their responsibilities on climate change.
View this post on Instagram
The United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other major oil producers voted against it. Italy instead chose to support the text. The resolution arises from the historic opinion issued in 2025 by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, according to which States have a duty to protect the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A step which, although not binding, could have important consequences in future climate lawsuits against governments and fossil industries.
The climate enters the sphere of responsibility
The novelty lies not only in the UN vote, but in the change of approach that this document tries to consolidate. For years the climate has remained above all a matter of political negotiations, voluntary objectives and international conferences often concluded with downward compromises. The opinion of the Court of The Hague instead shifts the terrain of the discussion: climate protection is brought back to the obligations already provided for by international law.
According to the Court, states cannot limit themselves to general declarations or future promises. Failure to contain emissions and the absence of adequate measures can constitute a real legal violation. It is the point that worries the large fossil economies the most, because it opens the way to new climate disputes before national and international courts.
It is no coincidence that Washington led the no front together with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and other oil-producing countries. The Trump administration would also have exerted diplomatic pressure to soften the text, which US representatives defined as a threat to American industry.
The political lesson of Vanuatu
An island country that is among the most vulnerable to global warming has put the great powers in difficulty. Vanuatu has for years faced increasingly violent cyclones, coastal erosion and rising sea levels. “The damage is real and is already present along all our islands and coasts,” Vanuatu’s ambassador Odo Tevi reminded the UN, bringing the debate back to the concrete dimension of the climate crisis.
Behind this diplomatic battle there is also the work of a group of law students from the Pacific, united in the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change movement. They were the ones who pushed to request the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, transforming a request born in universities into a global issue.
Italy’s yes
The Italian vote also deserves attention. Rome was among the countries that supported the request for an opinion from the Court in The Hague in 2023. A step backwards would have created a political contradiction that is difficult to explain. But there is also another element. After the reform of Article 9 of the Constitution, which protects the environment and ecosystems “in the interest of future generations”, the recognition of climate obligations as principles of international law could have a growing weight also within the Italian legal system.
During the debate at the United Nations, the Italian deputy permanent representative Gianluca Greco reiterated his support “for the work of the International Court of Justice” and the need to address a crisis that especially affects the most vulnerable populations.
The issue of fossil fuels
The resolution approved by the General Assembly reinforces a principle that will become increasingly important: those who contribute to the climate crisis could be held accountable. For this reason, the vote on May 20 risks having effects that go beyond the diplomatic language of the United Nations. Environmental organizations see it as an important precedent for future lawsuits against governments and energy companies. Greenpeace International has spoken openly about a move that transforms climate inaction from a moral problem to a possible violation of the law.
It is a strong affirmation of international law, climate justice, science and the responsibility of States to protect people from the worsening climate crisis, Secretary-General António Guterres said.
Naturally, the decisive question remains open: who will finance the energy transition and the climate damage already underway. The most vulnerable countries have been asking for years that the cost of the crisis does not fall on those who have contributed the least to global emissions. And it is also around this conflict that the next diplomatic battles on the climate will be played out.
