UN Vote Asks World Court to Rule on Climate Obligations

Facts

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday passed a resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clearly define the world’s governments' obligations to fighting climate change. The High Courts' legal opinion could compel states to increase their investments and actions.¹
In response to the vote, UN chief Antonio Guterres said the ICJ has “tremendous importance and can have a long-standing impact on the international legal order.”²
The resolution was introduced by the Pacific nation of Vanuatu and was supported by over 130 states. Following the vote, Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau stated that the passing of the resolution “sends a loud and clear message not only around the world but far into the future.”³
The ICJ will specifically be asked to look at wealthy nations, who are historically significant greenhouse gas emitters, and define their obligation towards considering the human rights of smaller and poorer nations who are suffering from the impacts of climate change.⁴
UN chief Guterres said that the vote will 'assist the General Assembly, the UN, and Member States to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs.”⁵
While this is the first time the High Court has been asked to address climate change issues, the decision — which will be non-binding — will have significant impacts on future negotiations and lawsuits relating to climate. The ICJ could take up to 18 months to issue a ruling.⁶

Pro-establishment narrative, as provided by Pew research center. While some remain skeptical over the necessity for and efficacy of climate action, data shows that a majority of people believe in and support the actions being taken by international organizations like the UN. Steps such as these will be invaluable in helping mitigate the impacts of climate change and will help reduce the loss of life, property, and cost to world economies in the coming years caused by global warming.
Establishment-critical narrative, as provided by The conversation. Though many are celebrating this UN vote as a pivotal moment of progress, it may well prove to be more of the empty rhetoric that has been delivered by the international community for at least three decades. Despite the increasing urgency of the climate crisis and the need to stop human damage to the environment in its tracks, organizations like the UN are continuing to prioritize specious, bureaucratic agreements (which are often later reneged on) over pragmatic policy.