The UN moves forward on a global framework to demand accountability for the climate crisis

The debate is based on a ruling that recognizes climate change as a legal obligation and a human rights issue.

Amnesty International highlighted a draft UN resolution on climate change that seeks to put into practice the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States in relation to the “urgent and existential threat” posed by climate change, which would represent a roadmap for the adoption of concrete measures and for accountability on the part of States.

Although it is not binding, Amnesty notes that the opinion issued by the world's highest court in 2025 is regarded as an authoritative opinion that clarifies States' obligations with respect to climate change. It stresses that it will bolster initiatives to hold world leaders accountable, guide the phase-out of fossil fuels and strengthen climate laws and policies, as well as promote climate justice for all people around the world.

UN Member States are currently negotiating the draft, which expresses their full support for the ICJ opinion, and are expected to vote on it at the end of April 2026. Vanuatu is one of the countries leading the efforts to get this resolution adopted; this Pacific island nation has warned on several occasions that it could disappear due to rising sea levels.

The ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion reaffirming that States have binding obligations under international law to combat climate change. It was the first time the ICJ had examined the international legal framework as applied to climate change. Amnesty International highlighted that it is a milestone made possible by the joint and sustained work of governments, social movements, civil society organizations and Indigenous communities.

The Court's opinion was unanimous and made clear that protecting the global climate system is a legal obligation and not a political option, since failing to do so threatens human rights and the well-being of people now and in the future. The ICJ also stated that countries must act jointly to remedy existing damage and prevent further climate devastation.

Along these lines, the Court held that “the environment is the basis of human life upon which the health and well-being of present and future generations depend” and that harm to the climate is already endangering millions of people.

Amnesty maintains that the ICJ ruling strengthens protections for populations suffering climate injustice and reinforces the reality that human rights and environmental protection are inseparable.

Environmental and human rights organizations maintain that climate change is a global human rights emergency. The burning of fossil fuels emits heat-trapping greenhouse gases and is the main cause of the environmental crisis. Various studies indicate that the world is on track to exceed 1.5 °C of warming by the next decade, which will worsen the effects of climate change and push many ecosystems and communities to the limit.

Meanwhile, Amnesty notes, some world leaders are making political decisions that represent a setback on climate just when stronger action is needed to overcome this problem. It also highlights that fossil fuel infrastructure poses health risks to at least 2 billion people, a quarter of the world's population.

War and climate change

Amid war in the Middle East, the debate over fossil fuel development seems even more distant, above all because it directly affects the energy supply chains of several countries around the world. The Strait of Hormuz has been closed for a month, since the United States and Israel attacked Iran and the Islamic Republic closed it in retaliation. Approximately 20% of the world's seaborne oil and gas trade passes through this waterway.

Among the hardest-hit nations are the Pacific island states (which are pushing for the adoption of the UN resolution), and the main risk is that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will drive up fuel prices and, consequently, freight costs and transport rates across supply chains.

Through these fuel and price channels, a distant conflict can hit islands located thousands of kilometers away. Although it may seem a distant crisis, its effects directly impact these dependent economies, cutting vulnerable island communities off from the rest of the world and exacerbating their exposure to climate pressures stemming from rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Guillermo Whpei

President of Fundación para la Democracia