When the Court handed down its opinion, it took the question of climate obligations out of the realm of political discretion and placed it firmly within the law. The ruling was unanimous. All 15 judges confirmed that states have an obligation to protect the shared climate system.

The advisory opinion creates an authoritative legal foundation that others can build on, in domestic courts, international negotiations and accountability mechanisms. Climate litigants around the world are already citing it. State delegations are already invoking it in multilateral spaces.

This resolution is a part of a broader push to implement the advisory opinion. It’s about transforming the advisory opinion from a legal document into a political mandate. It says that the international community has seen it, deliberated on it and committed to implementing it. And it gives small island states a platform to hold major emitters accountable in every forum where decisions are made.

The ICJ’s ruling confirmed that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system. It specifically said that the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C is non-negotiable, and state obligations extend beyond emissions targets to include fossil fuel production and subsidies. This is a major expansion of accountability.

The opinion also confirmed that state obligations derive from multiple sources of law, including climate law, environmental law, human rights law and customary international law. This creates a robust legal framework with no escape routes. Crucially, the Court stated that state obligations carry legal consequences, meaning breaches are not merely political failures but potential grounds for reparations.

By placing climate obligations within the law, the ICJ reframed climate action from voluntary charity to legal obligation. This matters for accountability because it establishes that states cannot simply opt out and violations have legal consequences.

Civil society is working for the legal consensus the ICJ provided to be understood and recognised by as many states as possible, in order to align politics with the law.

We urge states to stand for ambition, for the law and for climate justice by co-sponsoring the resolution and voting in favour. This crucial moment requires countries to do what’s right. Civil society is working across national capitals, multilateral forums and media to maintain pressure and visibility.

For civil society allies everywhere, this is a moment to double down and be more assertive. This resolution offers the perfect opportunity to demonstrate commitment and hold governments accountable to their legal obligations.

One example of an accountability mechanism would be a reformed Loss and Damage Fund that is capable of meeting the scale of need by operating on assessed contributions based on historical emissions and capacity to pay, rather than on voluntary pledges. Voluntary contributions mean the states most responsible can pay as little as they choose, making accountability voluntary too. The ICJ’s opinion provides the legal argument to demand that countries fill the fund based on their legal obligations.

Domestic litigation is already one of the sharpest tools for accountability. Courts in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands have held governments accountable, using international legal standards. Each new judgment strengthens the pathway to accountability. As more domestic cases cite the ICJ advisory opinion, the legal pressure on states intensifies.

The bottom line is this: we are not asking major emitters to be generous; we are demanding they meet the legal obligations the ICJ confirmed they have. The framing has shifted from charity to accountability, and civil society’s job now is to ensure every negotiation, every court case and every political conversation reflects that shift.