The UN General Assembly has recognised governments' responsibility on climate, but only thanks to a text weakened compared to the original draft.
The United Nations General Assembly approved, on Wednesday 20 May, a resolution that effectively recognises climate obligations incumbent on governments of countries around the world. A text that certainly represents a step forward, at least from a formal standpoint, but one that was achieved at the price of a watered-down compromise on many issues — some of which were, in effect, the very heart of the resolution itself.
A weakening of ambitions that is reflected, moreover, in the vote itself: in the end, the dilution of a series of measures made it possible to reach 141 votes in favour, 28 abstentions and just eight votes against. Among the latter were the historic, die-hard "pasdaran" of climate scepticism: the United States, Israel, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia (alongside Liberia, Yemen and Belarus).
The text stems from a procedure launched in 2024: at the time, the state of Vanuatu had asked the General Assembly to refer to the International Court of Justice to request an advisory opinion on the responsibility of governments to honour their climate commitments. The ruling by the International Tribunal in The Hague came last summer, and clearly stated that those who do not abide by their pledges to limit the rise in average global temperature are committing an "unlawful" act. It follows that those who suffer losses and damages resulting from such conduct could seek compensation, at least in theory.
A clear-cut position, then, but one that risks running up against the legal difficulties of actually obtaining "justice". The UN General Assembly has now acknowledged in the resolution "the importance and authority" of the International Court of Justice in "providing clarification on international law". It has also effectively called on governments to "honour their obligations", insisting that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels must be kept alive.
But at the heart of the draft, in the hopes of the most vulnerable nations least responsible for the climate crisis, lay a very concrete element: the establishment of an international "loss and damage registry" caused by climate change. An instrument that would also serve as evidence in legal proceedings. Too much for a great many nations, since such an official document would have effectively laid the groundwork for a mechanism that would have allowed affected countries to attempt to seek compensation.
There is also another particularly important passage that was removed from the final text: compared to the Court's opinion, the resolution draws the link between respect for human rights and climate action in far less forceful terms. On the whole, therefore, the preference was to increase the number of votes in favour — not least because the document is in any case legally non-binding.
Nonetheless, a formal position from the United Nations General Assembly is useful from a diplomatic standpoint and, as mentioned, from a "techno-legal" one. This is precisely why it had been sought by Vanuatu, whose ambassador to the UN welcomed the adoption, despite all the text's limitations: "It matters because the losses and damages are real and already present on our islands and coastal areas, for communities facing waves of drought and failed harvests, and for all those whose homes and livelihoods are being upended."
According to the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, this is in any case "a proclamation of international law, climate justice, science and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis." It is in the Portuguese diplomat that the hopes of those wishing to salvage the climate loss and damage registry project now rest: the resolution calls on the Secretary-General to present proposals to "promote compliance with all obligations" by governments — and it is precisely in that report that the registry could be revived.
In the current situation, moreover, it was objectively difficult to imagine more: the nations most responsible for harmful emissions have always opposed mechanisms that could compel them to make reparations for the damage caused. It is no coincidence that the United States deemed the resolution, even in its watered-down form relative to the original draft, "deeply problematic", as it contains "inappropriate political demands on fossil fuels and other climate issues", in the words of the US deputy ambassador to the UN, Tammy Bruce.
Furthermore, a paradoxical situation will need to be overcome: while the United Nations has pronounced on governments' climate responsibility, there are still around sixty countries that have yet to submit their greenhouse gas emissions reduction pledges (the Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs) — documents required under the Paris Agreement, for which the UN had requested submission many months ago.
