General Assembly: 83rd plenary meeting, 80th session

Welcome back. Please take your seats. The 83rd Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 73, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice. The documentation under this item is listed in the Journal of the United Nations. The UN has a clear vision of— and division of responsibilities, and today's discussions on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change reflect this. The ICJ, at the request of the General Assembly, provides legal guidance. Member States in turn bring that guidance into the political sphere. While the Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, addresses legal questions, it is for the General Assembly as the chief deliberative body to translate that legal clarity into political recommendations, complementing, not replacing, existing negotiation tracks under the multilateral climate framework. This remains true irrespective of the political discourse surrounding a given issue. Particularly one as consequential as climate change. The effectiveness of the United Nations depends on a coherent and collaborative relationship among its principal organs, the division of responsibilities. The ICJ has fulfilled its responsibility as the principal organ, providing legal clarity on the question posed by the General Assembly. It is now the responsibility of this Assembly, in its role as the principal organ as well, to determine how that guidance informs political action. By this, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vanuatu to introduce draft resolution A/80/L65.

Madam President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Madam President, I have the honour to introduce draft resolution L.65 entitled "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligation of States in Respect of Climate Change" on behalf of Vanuatu and a co-group, a cross-regional group of States. Three years ago, this Assembly came together, by consensus, to put to the principal judicial organ of the United Nations a question of profound consequence: What does international law require of States in the face of climate change? That decision, Resolution 77/276, was not Vanuatu's alone. It belonged to this Assembly, carried here by the Pacific law students and frontline communities, but adopted by this membership acting as one. The Court has now answered, and it answered unanimously. 15 judges, drawn from the world's principal legal systems, speaking with one voice. In an age of division, that unanimity is itself worth pausing on. The opinion does not invent new law. It clarifies the law that already binds us. It confirms that the protection of the climate system is a matter of legal obligation, not political discretion; that these obligations are grounded across the Charter, the climate treaties, human rights law, the law of the sea and customary international law, and the principles long recognized by this Assembly and with it the climate regime, equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities remain central to how they are fulfilled. Madam President, the draft resolution before you does what an Assembly should do when its Court has spoken: it welcomes the opinion; it recalls the clarifications the Court itself placed at the heart of its reasoning, with a paragraph on energy policy drawing on agreed outcomes of the first Global Stocktake. It calls on States to comply in good faith with the obligations the Court has identified—to prevent harm, to cooperate, and to act with the seriousness this challenge demands—and it provides for orderly follow-up, including a report adopted by the Secretary-General. Let me be equally clear about what the resolution does not do. It does not adjudicate disputes. It does not assign responsibility to any state. It does not reopen, replace, or compete with the UN Triple FCC and the Paris Agreement. On the contrary, it reaffirms them as the primary legal instruments and intergovernmental forums for the global response to climate change. The role of this Assembly is complementary: to receive the Court's clarifications with integrity and to support cooperation and implementation across the United Nations system. And this text belongs to the whole membership. Over 4 months, it was developed through 11 rounds of informal consultations open to every regional group, and shaped by dozens of written submissions and other inputs, each of these which was carefully considered and reflected in the text now before you. Every delegation here will recognize its fingerprints in this text, including delegations with divergent views. That is not a weakness; it is the source of the text's legitimacy. Madam President, we should be honest with one another about why this matters. It matters because the harm is real, and it is already here—for low-lying islands and coastlines, for communities facing drought and failed harvests, for people whose homes, livelihoods, and cultures are being reshaped by forces they did nothing to set in motion. The states and peoples bearing the heaviest burden are, very often, those who contributed leads to the problem. The Court did not look away from that reality, nor should this Assembly. But it also matters for a reason that touches every State in this room, large or small, developed or developing, more or less exposed to adverse effects. What is being tested today is whether the multilateral system can do the most basic thing we ask of it: respond to legal clarity in good faith rather than retreat from it, whether international law still holds in the face of what the Court called, and I quote, "an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet," end quote. The credibility of this institution and of the rule of law it exists to uphold is, in a real sense, before us today. A resolution that welcomes a unanimous opinion of our own Court and acts to honour the law, as the Court has explained, it merits the broadest support across the Membership. To receive the Court's guidance faithfully, as part of the ordinary mandated practice of this Assembly— we are aware that some would prefer this Assembly to say less, or nothing at all, But an effort to reopen a carefully balanced text, one painstakingly built by this membership, does not improve it. It asks delegations to step back from the work what is already their own. Vanuatu and the core group are therefore disappointed that these amendments have been tabled. The same proposals have been made during the negotiations and have failed to attract sufficient support to be included in the final text, which reflects a carefully balanced outcome following extensive consultation. The amendments substantially weaken the text on ambition and equity and risk undermining the Court's guidance. We recognize the sovereign right of any delegation to propose amendments. We also note that the same set of delegations has tabled the four amendments and we see them as a package. In order to ensure an orderly process and to avoid reopening the carefully negotiated balance of the text paragraph by paragraph, the Core Group requests a single recorded vote to cover all four. Vanuatu and the Core Group will vote against the amendments, and we respectfully encourage all delegations to do likewise, so that the Assembly may then adopt the draft resolution L.65 as tabled. Madam President, we have had the wish from a significant number of delegations to put their positions and legal points on the public record. Therefore, on a point of order, we request that the General Assembly allow for general statements to be held after action has been taken on L.65. To conclude, Madam President, This day will be remembered. It will be remembered as the moment the United Nations received the considered judgment of its highest court on the defining challenge of our time, and decided what to do with it. Vanuatu and the core group believe this Assembly should meet that moment with unity, with seriousness, and with respect for the law and for one another. We thank every delegation for the spirit of engagement, that has brought us to this day. Finally, Madam President, we warmly invite all the delegations that have not yet done so to add their names as co-sponsors. I thank you. Merci beaucoup.

I thank the distinguished representative of Vanuatu. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria to introduce draft amendment A/A.

80/L66. Thank you, Madam President. I have the honor to introduce the amendment to operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on behalf of the delegations of Bahrain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uganda, and Yemen, and my own delegation, Algeria. Madam President, our delegations have engaged constructively throughout negotiations on this draft resolution with the expectation that the final text would faithfully reflect the full breadth of the Court's findings. The Court addressed not only mitigation but adaptation, loss and damage, as well as obligations for the provision of means of implementation to help developing countries to respond to a crisis they did not create. Our delegations were therefore surprised and deeply regret that the resolution before us today contains no operative paragraph addressing the obligations on provisions of means of implementation for developing countries. The text before us places an excessive and disproportionate focus on mitigation obligations, including selectively highlighting and rewriting obligations from COP outcomes without a commensurate reference to the finance obligations that accompany them. Madam President, developing countries who bear the least historical responsibility for climate change must adapt to its consequences, fulfill their obligations under international law, and recover from loss and damage. To ask them to do so without a corresponding legal anchor for the financial support they are owed is is neither balanced nor faithful to what the court actually said. While our delegations would have preferred more ambitious language on finance, we have deliberately tabled the agreed language, drawn directly from Articles 2, 9, 10, and 11 of the Paris Agreement, precisely to garner the broadest possible support. These are provisions to which almost every member state in this hall has already committed and which the Court itself affirmed. We call on all delegations to vote in favor of this amendment to uphold their obligations under the Paris Agreement. A vote against this paragraph would constitute a step backward from those obligations— from these obligations and risk undermining both the integrity of the Paris Agreement and our efforts to address climate change. By supporting this amendment, the Assembly will send a clear message that it takes the Court's opinion seriously and in its entirety, while reaffirming that the burden of climate action should not fall disproportionately on those least responsible for it. I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia to introduce draft amendment A3. A/80/L67 and A/80/L69 revision 1.

Thank you, Madam President. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with Algeria, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar have proposed the targeted amendments on OP2. Our amendment addresses a fundamental concern of fidelity of the advisory opinion itself. As drafted, the paragraph selectively emphasizes and reinterprets certain elements of the Court's findings in a manner that presents particular readings of the opinion as agreed positions of the General Assembly., and that risk ascribing to the Court's conclusions which it didn't in terms render. Our proposed changes are targeted and modest. They seek only to ensure that what is— what this resolution says the Court found is. In fact, what the Court found rather than with a blanket endorsement to matters that continue to lack consensus within the General Assembly. We call on all delegations to support the amendment and preserve the integrity of the ICJ, which preserved in its reasoning the fundamental principles that states are bound by obligations in accordance with the legal instruments to which they have consented.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kuwait to introduce draft amendment A/80/L68.

Thank you, Madam President.

Kuwait, on behalf of Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, has submitted an amendment on the current resolution presented for adoption, which carries the document symbol of AATL.68. The proposal is to amend the resolution by deleting operative paragraph 11 in the said resolution. This amendment has already been circulated by the Secretariat. Our delegations are of the view that the goal of the current operative paragraph to establish a standing agenda item to create a follow-up mechanism for the advisory opinion referenced in the resolution is inconsistent with existing practices of the General Assembly. While the intention of the operative paragraph could be considered beneficial to the interests of the membership, our delegations do not view this text to have the consensus to proceed with ingraining such a commitment upon the membership, and therefore establishing an agenda item within the context of this resolution in its current form would not be an accurate reflection of the will of all delegations. Beyond that, and in light of the administrative and budgetary concerns within the UN80 Initiative, which are at the forefront of the considerations of the membership, we do not believe that establishing a new agenda item after a contentious process would best serve the membership. Such a commitment requires far greater consideration and evaluation. Moreover, establishment should be based on a document that enjoys wider consensus and agreement.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the distinguished representative of Kuwait. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/80/L65 and draft amendments A/80/L66, A/80/L67, A/80/L68, and A/80/L69, Revision 1. In this connection, since draft amendment A/80/L69 Revision 1 has only been circulated today, it would be necessary to waive the relevant provision of Rule 78 of the Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows: As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the General Assembly unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations no later than the day preceding the meeting. Unless I hear any objections, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees with my proposal to waive Rule 78. It is so decided. For your information, the draft resolution and draft amendments have closed for e-sponsorship. I give the floor to the Secretariat and the representative of the Secretariat.

Madam President, I wish to address the additional co-sponsorship for the draft resolution and all the draft amendments one by one. First, on draft resolution L.65, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors Sponsors of L65: Botswana, Bulgaria, Congo, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Maldives, Myanmar, Saint-Tome and Principe, Slovakia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, and Vietnam. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor L65, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Denmark, Mali, Thailand, Guinea-Bissau, Costa Rica, Morocco, Niger, South Sudan, Sri Lanka. Next, uh, draft amendment L66. Since the submission of the draft amendment L66, and in addition to the delegation listed on the L document The following country— countries have also become co-sponsors of draft amendment L.66: China and Congo. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor L.66, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see the microphone button being pressed for additional co-sponsorship for Amendment L66 by Costa Rica, Morocco, Liberia, Namibia. Next, L.67. Since the submission of the draft amendment L.67, and in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors of L67, Qatar and Yemen. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor L67, please signify by pressing the microphone button now. I see Comoros, Sudan, Next, L68. Since the submission of the draft amendment L68, in, in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, therefore, uh, so far no country has also become co-sponsor of that draft amendment L68. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor L68 please signify by pressing the microphone button now. I see Komoros. Finally, L.69 Revision 1. Since the submission of draft amendment L.69 Revision 1, and in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, no country has become additional co-sponsor for L.69 Revision 1. If any other country wish to co-sponsor L.69 Revision 1, please signify by pressing the microphone button now. I see none. Thank you, Madam President. This concludes the additional co-sponsorship.

We see one addition.

Yes, Costa Rica is pressing the microphone button, Madam President. I understand that this is to state the change to its co-sponsorship. So, would Costa Rica wish to clarify any change to its co-sponsorship? Yeah, microphone to Costa Rica, please, for clarification. Thank you very much, Madam President.

We would like to clarify that our co-sponsorship, it's only to the draft resolution only.

Thank you.

And Madam President, delegation of Morocco is also seeking the floor on clarification on co-sponsorship.

Co-sponsorship. Thank you, Mr. President.

Yes, indeed, this is to clarify that our—

we are co-sponsoring the resolution only and not the amendments. Would like to rectify that.

Thank you very much. So, Madam President, with these clarifications, this concludes the additional co-sponsorship. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. I think also for the clarification. Delegations wishing to make a statement in the explanation of vote before the vote on any proposal under this on each item, including the draft amendments, are invited to do so now in one intervention. After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote before the vote, may I remind delegation that they are strongly urged to limit explanation of votes to 5 minutes. And as I said in the morning, We had a discussion in the General Committee, which will be implemented soon, but I would strongly encourage you to follow this principle already with good practice. So, asking you to stay within 5 minutes for member states speaking on behalf of the national capacity and 7 minutes for those speaking on behalf of a group, which should in any case not exceed 10 minutes and be made from their seats. As the first speaker, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia, followed by Palau, Cyprus, and the United States.

Thank you.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stresses the great importance of multilateral work to deal with the challenges of climate change. And we reiterate our commitment to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, including the equity and common response, CBDR. We also stress that these are the competent and agreed-upon reference points to determine the responsibilities and obligations of those responsible for climate change. We also unequivocally state that we completely We respect the ICJ and we appreciate the advisory opinions that are issued that maintain its standing within the international order. We also want to stress once again that we have participated in the negotiations on the draft resolution in good faith right from the start with the aim of reaching a balanced and acceptable result. And throughout the negotiations, many proposals and resolutions and different drafting were submitted, including drafts that were previously agreed upon. Therefore, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regrets to note that delegations were not given the opportunity to go into detail into this text, which is what is normally required by high-impact resolutions. The reservations— the main reservations of a large group of states that were repeatedly announced by the— during the negotiations were not taken into consideration into the text that was submitted to the states. We find that the final resolution has some aspects that are not binding through— from the advisory opinion and gives the impression that there are new obligations or extended obligations that goes beyond what was collectively agreed upon and consensually agreed upon as part of the UNFCC. We also regret that a number of proposals to amendments were not taken into consideration by us and other states in order to achieve the necessary balance and to maintain the consensual nature of the text. As for the second paragraph, we express our concern regarding the drafting which presents proposals as if they set international obligations, regardless— despite of the non-obligatory, non-binding aspect of them. We also see that there was a selective selection of some of the outputs of the UNFCCC. The current drafting has limited references to some outputs outside of the agreed-upon context. And other outputs that does not reflect the balanced and comprehensive nature of the agreed-upon outcomes. Some of the drafting related to energy sources does not reflect the international consensus regarding this issue. As for operative paragraph 11, we reject this paragraph because it has the assumption of continuing the implementation of a non-binding advisory opinion, which does not— is not based on any legal basis. Advisor opinions of the ICJ in their nature are non-binding and do not constitute obligations in terms of their implementation and do not entail any institutional oversight mechanisms. Therefore, having this concept as part of the General Assembly is an unnecessary expansion of the role of the advisory opinion that goes beyond its nature. We regret that this resolution led to a division among the member states, which meant that we could not reach consensus. We hope that this process is a lesson learned for everyone, which means that issues related to climate change should always be based on consensus and that it should be addressed through agreed-upon negotiation channels and based on equity and CBDR. In conclusion, we reaffirm our commitment to engaging constructively in international efforts to combat climate change in line with these agreed-upon principles and frameworks.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Palau.

Thank you, Madam President. Palaau has the honor to speak on behalf of the member states of the Alliance of Small Island States, the states disproportionately affected by climate change, to explain our votes on the proposed amendments. This resolution reflects a delicate balance achieved through extensive discussion and negotiation. It operationalizes the ICJ's advisory opinion while protecting the essential interests of small island developing states and the broader community of developing countries. These four amendments, despite their varying subjects, share a common thread. Each seeks to reopen provisions that were the subject of intensive negotiation. The OP2 amendment weakens language on customary international law obligations found by the Court. The OP3 amendment selectively quotes the Paris Agreement provisions in ways that undermine the clear guidance from the court on the 1.5-degree temperature target and omits critical SIDS protections on finance in Articles 9 and 11 of the Paris Agreement. The OP4 amendment, while substantively strong, would reopen challenging discussions on energy transitions that the current text was designed to avoid. And the OP-11 amendment would delete an agenda item in GA-83 only, a vital follow-up mechanism essential to ensuring implementation beyond this resolution. While EOSIS shares many of the substantive goals reflected in these proposals, accepting them would require reopening a carefully calibrated compromise that underpins the current text. This is a position of principle., not a judgment on the substance of our colleagues' proposals. There is no group that has been a stronger supporter of the Paris Agreement than EOSYS. Our long-held position is that we do not renegotiate the Paris Agreement here in the General Assembly.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Palau. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cyprus.

Thank you, Madam President. Cyprus takes the floor in its capacity as the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and wishes to deliver the following explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The European Union and its member states are opposed to the proposed amendments on both procedural and substantive grounds. On procedure, the text before this assembly is the outcome of 5 months of intensive and comprehensive negotiations. As in any other UN process, the result is a compromise, one that required all delegations to concede something in order to achieve the widest possible support. Tabling amendments at this late stage on provisions that were already the subject of dedicated consultations is difficult to reconcile with the spirit of cooperation that has characterized this process. And risks undermining its carefully negotiated balance. On substance, the amendments weaken the resolution's grounding in the advisory opinion's language and findings. The proposed changes move away from that approach, replacing balanced, comprehensive language with narrower references that do not reflect the full scope of applications identified by the Court and risk reopening outcomes already carefully negotiated within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Paris Agreement processes, which remain the appropriate fora for those discussions. The General Assembly is not the place to revisit them. The European Union and its member states will therefore vote against the amendments and remain fully committed to the resolution as originally tabled. Iceland aligns itself with this explanation of vote. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cyprus. Also, on behalf of the European Union, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Madam President, President Trump has been clear in seeing the potential of the UN and illustrating with his leadership how we can tackle and overcome the world's toughest problems. We are committed to working with our friends and partners in meeting these challenges, but how we do it matters. Throughout the negotiation of this resolution, the United States has been consistent in conveying our opposition to this initiative. The United States did not support seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. On climate change and has many concerns about the court's opinion. We understand the concerns that Vanuatu and other countries have about specific environmental threats and the importance they attach to the court's opinion. And we acknowledge that some changes were made to moderate the text of the resolution in certain respects in response to member states' concerns during negotiations. However, the United States continues to have serious legal and policy concerns about this resolution. In brief, this resolution is highly problematic in calling on states to comply with so-called obligations that are based on non-binding conclusions of the court on which UN member states' views diverge. The resolution includes inappropriate political demands, relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics. And we believe there is no basis for the resolution's mandate to the Secretary-General to report on the complex and nuanced legal issues addressed by the court. The United States was not alone in our concerns about this initiative, and many similar concerns were voiced by states across regional groups during the negotiation process. The consultations made clear that there is no broad agreement among UN member states about the merits of the Court's advisory opinion. The Court's advice on the legal issues— it addressed whether and how the opinion is relevant to activities of the General Assembly or the textual elements of the revised draft resolution itself. We will highlight a few of our most significant concerns today. As an initial matter, the Court's advisory opinion is, by definition, not binding on UN member states. It was not issued in a contentious case between states on the basis of state consent, but rather pursuant to the Court's advisory function. Yet the resolution improperly treats the Court's opinion as irrefutably authoritative and as setting on out binding obligations on states. The resolution also amplifies legal errors from the court's opinion. For example, the resolution calls on states to comply with so-called obligations that are based on the court's expansive and unfounded view that states have a legal duty to prevent significant transboundary harm to the global climate as a whole. Not only is this a legally wrong conclusion, But such an expansive legal rule would impermissibly interfere with each state's sovereign rights to regulate and manage its own energy policy. The resolution repeats the court's failure to recognize the climate treaties are the sole source of a state's climate obligations and the court's misinterpretation of those treaties. And we disagree with the court's conclusions. Relating to the duty to cooperate, the principle of non-refoulement, and on guarantees and assurances of non-repetition, among other conclusions highlighted in the resolution. The resolution also goes beyond the Court's conclusions in several concerning ways. For example, we are disappointed that the resolution selectively repeats the Court's view that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities applies to all climate change obligations, and not just when parties to climate treaties have expressly included this principle as a guide to interpretation. In doing so, the resolution conspicuously omits the Court's own important caveat that how this principle guides a state's obligations depends on where it falls on the spectrum between the most developed and the least developed countries, and that states have evolved to have greater responsibilities as their economic development and contributions to greenhouse gases have increased over time. Such states should not be given a free pass. When referencing the Court's views on human rights, the resolution mischaracterizes the Court's conclusion by adding references to the human rights of peoples, despite the clear understanding that international human rights law applies to individuals and not groups. With respect to sea level rise, the resolution takes the court's view on the impact on sea level rise on maritime boundaries and statehood as a launching point to make broad, conclusory, and expedient assertions that go beyond the text of the court's opinion and are not founded in international law. In other instances, the resolution singles out certain groups for preferential treatment and makes alarmist political statements, such as the idea that climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civil— civilizational proportions. Such hyperbolic statements are not appropriate in a resolution on an ICJ advisory opinion. The resolution purports to avoid duplication of existing framework for the international community's consideration of climate matters. Yet the resolution urges states to promote goals set by the climate process, such as so-called "just transitions" from fossil fuels, and decides to include the Court's advisory opinion on the General Assembly's future agenda. These elements of the resolution create avenues for encroaching on and duplicating the existing framework. Finally, we have substantial concerns about the resolution's request that the Secretary-General issue a report on how to advance compliance with the advisory opinion. Even the Court emphasized the limited role that international law plays with respect to climate change, and avoided assigning liability or concluding that internationally wrongful acts have been committed by any state or states. There is no basis in the court's opinion for the General Assembly to provide the Secretary-General with this type of mandate. And we are aware of no similar precedent. We urge the Secretariat to avoid wading into the complex legal issues addressed by the Court and avoid duplicating or complicating work that is part of the entirely separate processes under the UNFCCC. For all of these reasons, the United States opposes this resolution and encourages all member states to do the same.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. I would urge member states again to stay within the time limits of 5 minutes. Any further? No. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. We will now proceed to consider draft resolution A/AD/L65 and draft amendments A/AD/L62. L66, A/80/L67, A/80/L68, and A/80/L69/revision 1. Before proceeding further, the representative of Vanuatu has moved that all the draft amendments be considered together as one package. The decision on the question will need to be decided by the Assembly. Is there any objection to this motion? I see Saudi Arabia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Madam President. The amendments before the Assembly are separate texts introduced by different delegations addressing four distinct operative paragraphs. They cannot be bundled into a single voting object. Rule 19 is clear. The rule— Rule 90 is clear. The Assembly shall vote on each amendment in turn, in sequence, beginning with the one farther removed in substance from the original text. This is a mandatory procedural requirement, not a distinct— a, a distinct one. The only exception Rule 90 recognizes is where adoption of one of the amendments necessarily implies rejection of the— of another. That condition is not met here. No other basis for grouping exists under the rules. Merging distinct amendments without sponsor consent and without explicit Assembly decision to depart from its rules has no procedural basis. Any forced bundling would therefore circumvent the amendment procedure and deny delegations substantive consideration of their own proposal. We therefore respectfully raise a point of order under Rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure and request the President to rule that an en bloc vote on the four separately tabled amendments is not permissible under Rule 90, and that each amendment must be put to the vote individually and in sequence as Rule 90 requires. It should either be put separately in respect of each amendment, or if framed as an adjournment, of debate on the item draft as a whole apply to the draft resolution together with all amendments thereto. Our delegation therefore regret— regrettably withdraws its proposal on OP2 so as to avoid creating a precedent whereby no action motion is used to bundle separate amendments into a single voting object, effectively denying member states the opportunity to consider each amendment on its own merits. We therefore request that each amendment be put to the vote individually and in sequence, and request the President to rule this motion out of order in strict accordance with Rule 90. I thank you.

Thank you very much. Please, everybody reflecting on the different proposals. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Kuwait. Afterwards, I see the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If there are further requests, Please press your microphone buttons.

Madam President, Kuwait raises a point of order based on Rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure in response to the motion to group the proposed amendments that have been submitted. Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly is clear in its implications on the procedural necessity for any and all amendments to be considered at plenary. As per the order set out in said rule of procedure, Whereas the exception stipulated in Rule 90 is when the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to the vote. Our view is that this exception has not been satisfied and grouping the amendments together detracts from the implications of Rule 90. Such action is also inconsistent with the dynamics that have led up to today's plenary and the consideration of the membership. With that said, Kuwait raises a point of order against the motion to group the amendments based on Rule 71. Therefore, we regrettably withdraw our proposal on OP 11 so as to avoid setting an unsafe precedent where the proposal of an amendment comes under a no-action motion that effectively groups the items for consideration by the membership and without the nuances of dynamics that led up to the procedural motions to begin with, and also to do so despite the desires of the proponents of said amendment. Madam President, we request that Rule 90 be enforced and for each proposal to be considered separately and in sequence as per established procedure. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kuwait. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Madam President, for the floor. Madam President, we also request for the same reason as the ambassador, distinguished ambassador and peer of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, requests Mr. President, and as well as the distinguished delegation of Kuwait, we also believe that separate action on each amendment would ensure greater legal and procedural clarity, preserve the integrity of the decision-making process, and enabling delegations to express their position on each proposed individually, transparently, and with precision. Having said that, we fully support that action be taken individually on each request given. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We concur with the point of order raised by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As very eloquently explained by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia, the amendments before the Assembly are separate texts introduced by different delegations addressing four distinct operative paragraphs. They cannot be bundled into a single voting object. Rule 90 is clear: the Assembly shall vote on each amendment in turn in sequence, beginning with the one furthest removed in substance from the original text. This is a mandatory procedural requirement, not a discretionary one. The only exception to Rule 90 is where adoption of one amendment necessarily implies rejection of another. That condition is not being met here. No other basis for grouping exists under the rules, nor in our practice and precedent. Merging distinct amendments without the sponsor's consent and without an explicit Assembly decision to depart from its rules has no procedural basis. Allowing this would set a dangerous precedent, one that could be exploited in future sessions to suppress legitimate amendment rights by bundling incompatible texts and disposing of them together through a single procedural maneuver. We therefore echo the point of order raised by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We strongly support it and we request that the President make a ruling on the admissibility of the motion. Lastly, irrespective of our political differences and divergence of opinion on matters of substance, we should not, as a matter of principle, prevent individual delegations or groups of member states from being able to propose amendments and have them duly considered by the Assembly. I thank you very much.

Are there any further requests for the floor? I don't see any. At the motion, as we have all listened carefully to the statements just made, I would like to underline that there is no explicit provision in the rules of procedure that prohibits the motion because it has been brought forward by Vanuatu. We have had these cases before, and therefore I will proceed now as we have proceeded also before, also because other statements have made the point of order. In this light of the objections just heard, I shall now put to recorded vote the motion made by the representative of Vanuatu that all all the draft amendments to draft resolution A/80/L65, that is draft amendments L66 to L69 revision 1, be considered together as one package. If you follow the arguments by others being raised, you can highlight this respectively in your vote. So those in favor of the motion, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on the motion submitted by the representative Vanuatu that all amendments be considered together as one package. Those in favor of the motion by Vanuatu should press yes. Those against the motion by Vanuatu should press no. Will all delegations confirm that the votes are accurately reflected on the screen?

And we wait a couple of seconds just that we don't have to adjust later. Yes. Okay, there's a point of order, but before I give you the floor to Saudi Arabia, I would like to clarify. We are in the middle of the voting process, so the point of order is on technical grounds. For example, if you cannot press the button, it's not on content. Please, the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam President. My point of order is relating to the voting on the amendment. It's not clear whether we are voting on the two amendments or the four amendments as a whole.

Together against— if I understood correctly, your delegation spoke. Clarified? Why are we going back on—

so we, you know, we have—

Saudi Arabia asked for the floor again. I give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam, and please forgive me for taking the floor again just to also to ensure that we are understanding this voting. This voting basically on the two amendments or the four amendments because we have already Saudi Arabia and the State of Kuwait have already withdraw two amendments.

Yes, the Secretariat and myself, but thank you for clarification, but maybe not everyone in the room has understood that there has been two withdrawn. This is why I said that we are voting on the amendments to draft resolution A/80/L65, that is draft amendments L66 to L69 revision 1. Is this correct, or do you want to withdraw withdraw further? That's correct? Clear to everyone in the room? So there has been withdrawal of amendments, so there are not 4 amendments anymore but only 2, the ones I just mentioned. Fine for everyone? So L67 and L68 are being withdrawn, which leaves it to L66 and L69, OP3 and OP4. Because we want to be very clear that everybody is on the same page, any request for the floor to clarify this, not on content. I don't see it, so I would like to repeat. But now we have another request. We have Pakistan and South Africa. Just as I don't want to interrupt the statements, we are in the midst of the voting process. We had the point of order for clarification of the amendments. I read out which amendments we are in the middle of voting. We are in the motion of if somebody has to, uh, adjust their voting. So I give first the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan, followed by South Africa.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We observe somewhat of a procedural irregularity here. There was a motion moved, then there was a point of order raised supported by 3 delegations including my own, and after that there was a ruling by you, the President. And according to our reading of Rule 71, any representative may appeal against the ruling of the President. In this case, Saudi Arabia did rule against— did appeal against your ruling, and Pakistan joins that appeal respectfully. And then the rule goes on to say the appeal shall be put immediately to vote, and the President's ruling shall stand unless overruled by a majority of the members present and voting. So instead of voting on your ruling, your motion, and the appeal against it, we jumped one step and started voting on the motion to club the amendments together itself. This is a procedural irregularity. We should first vote on your ruling, on the appeal against your ruling, please. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your intervention. Yet I must clarify, there was no appeal by Saudi Arabia. I asked precisely— Saudi Arabia was asking what we are voting on. I was responding what we are voting on, and before we opened the vote by the Secretariat, there was no appeal. This is why we proceeded like this. We are therefore in the midst of this voting process where we didn't have any appeal against. We stopped the voting process due to a point of order on what we are voting on. This has been clarified. And there was— after I asked if there any further need for clarification, no further need. Now you ask it, and I'm clarifying again that there was no appeal on the proposal I made in line— I would like to underline this— with Rule 90, and also in line with practices which we had here before. If there's unclarity in the rules of procedures, member states are free to look at the rules of procedures. We have also some others which clarification could be needed in the future, but as long as these rules of procedures are not changed, we are following them. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa. Thank you, Madam President.

Ours is in line with the clarification sought by the distinguished permanent representative of Saudi Arabia.

Our understanding, and, um, but this is just for clarity, we are now voting on the motion of Vanuatu to link the two amendments.

Then after that, we will vote on the amendments themselves.

Is that our understand—

okay, then thank you very much.

That's clarified. Thank you.

Thank you very much for helping to clarify. I just want to say that at one point we have to finish this. We can debate the rules of procedure further, but exactly as South Africa has said so, we are voting on the proposal, and you're free to vote in favor or against. We are voting on the proposal by Vanuatu to group them. Saudi Arabia has clarified, as others, that it's not 4 amendments anymore which are being grouped, only 2, because 2 has been withdrawn. The grouping is for the amendment L66 OP3 and L69 OP4. Part of you have already voted, so I would like to proceed with finishing this voting process, as South Africa has said, after the result of the vote. So we will see whether they are being voted as a pack or not, depends on the outcome of the vote. We will go in detail to the amendments. But now I see Iran asking for the floor as well. I would like to give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and then I would really like to proceed with the voting. But you're free to press the button again.

Thank you, Madam President. We just echoed a point made by our colleague from Pakistan, Pakistan, and then it seems to me that Excellencies, the delegates are waiting for further clarification. I appreciate that they clarify the process. The point that made by Pakistan is valid, and then we had the same understanding. I appreciate that they clarified the way forward. We know that it's an afternoon, but the member state needs clarification. I myself received a lot of messages from our colleagues, They don't know the process, so it needs further clarification. I appreciate your clarification. Thank you. Okay.

Just for transparency, you can also press a button. You don't have to send SMS to colleagues, but I can repeat again. So I followed the rules of procedure, Rule 90, in which a proposal is being made by Vanuatu on behalf of group of states to group the amendment. Not everybody in the room likes this. Anyway, there has been no appeal. This is why we started the voting process. There has been the point of order by some delegations, including Saudi Arabia, also Pakistan and others, to withdraw two amendments. This is why we are now also voting on the grouping of 2 remaining amendments. This is what we started here. So for clarification, we continue now with the secretariat reading it out again, what you see on the screen. Continue it, then we have a result. After we have the result, we will see whether we vote on content on 2 amendments at the same moment or on 1 amendment after the other amendment. By this, I now give the floor to the High Representative of the Secretariat.

So, Madam President, as you clarified, the Assembly is now voting, um, on the motion submitted by the Representative Vanuatu that the two remaining draft amendments, uh, to be considered together as one package. The two being L.66 and L.69 Revision 1, these two remaining draft amendments to be considered together as one package. That is the motion by Vanuatu that is currently being voted on. So you should press yes if you are in agreement you support the motion by Vanuatu, and you should press no when you are against the motion by Vanuatu. Will all delegations confirm that their votes on the motion by Vanuatu are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed.

Please lock the The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 92, against, 56, abstention, 19. The motion is adopted. Since the motion is adopted, both the draft amendments which were L66 OP3, L69 OP4, will be considered together as one package. In accordance with Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure, the Assembly shall first take a decision on the draft amendments. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process on these two amendments together. Those in favor of draft amendments A/80/L66 and L69 revision 1, please signify. Those against—

Abstentions. The Assembly is now voting on draft amendments L.66 and L.69 Revision 1. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. Thank you.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 53; against, 91; abstentions, 20. Draft amendments A/80/L66 and L69 revision 1 are not adopted. We have another point of order. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Croatia.

Thank you, Madam President. This is just to say that Croatia would like to co-sponsor the resolution.

Thank you.

Any further? I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Kuwait.

Thank you, Madam President. We take the floor to move to reintroduce our proposal in amending operative paragraph 11 of the current draft resolution, and we do so in reliance of Rule 80 of the Rules of Procedure. Given that the matters of procedure have now been resolved, so to speak, we have the view that it is in the interest of the membership to consider the amendment without the pressures of procedural actions that could unduly impact the consideration. The amendment is deletion of operative paragraph 11 entirely. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Next time, bring all your rules of procedure. So, um, Just to be clear, and thank you for underlining on which rule, because also for me it was a bit hard to hear the last sentence of your proposal on what it's on, just that we don't have to come back to clarify on which amendment we are talking about. Could you please just repeat your proposal? I know that we are voting on it, on Rule 80. But from content-wise and the number that everybody in the room is clear what we are speaking about without giving all the arguments why you introduced the amendment.

Of course, Madam President. The amendment is the deletion of operative paragraph 11 entirely in the resolution.

Thank you. That was very clear. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Madam President. We take the floor on a point of order to move to reintroduce our proposal on amending operative paragraph 2 of the current draft resolution contained in A/80/1.67, and we do so in reliance Rule 80 of the Rules of Procedure. Given that the matters of procedure have now been resolved and we, we are of the view that it is in the interest of the membership to consider the amendments without pressures of procedural actions that could unduly impact the consideration, the amendments in paragraph, in operative paragraph 2, we request replacing 'as identified by the court' with 'taking into account the views of the court as appropriate.' Thank you.

I thank you also for this clarification. So just to be again 100% on the same page. There's no new amendments. These were the amendments already being introduced on the first place by Saudi Arabia and by Kuwait, which are the original amendments L67 touching OP2 and L68 touching OP 2011 by Saudi Arabia introduced and Kuwait. The rules of procedure also here clear, you cited it, rules of procedure 80, so we will come back to that one. We just have to fix it here with the machine, so one second. So while we're fixing, just to explain, and I hope everybody is fine with this proposal, Vanuatu has requested in the light of 4 amendments, the grouping of 4, then 2 have been removed. We voted on that one on the base of two. But may I take it that it's in line with Vanuatu that we are not going back to discussing now grouping or not? I would propose that we vote on them separately. So we would vote first, because Kuwait pressed the button first, on the amendment introduced by Kuwait, L68, touching OP 11, and then afterwards L69, 67 Saudi Arabia OP2. I don't see any ejection. Secretariat, are we ready? Yeah. Looking to the left here, I'm quite clear how to proceed. Can we proceed? Yep. This all— it's just that everybody is, uh, bearing with us. As I said, we're voting on the amendments L67 and 68. Technically, you have withdrawn them, so I read now the oral amendments, but the content is the same. Therefore, the representative of Kuwait has proposed an oral amendment, which was the original amendment L67. 2018/208 to draft resolution A/80/L65. In accordance with Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure, the Assembly shall first take a decision on this oral amendment. I didn't hear it, but I interpret it, a recorded vote has been requested. Yes, and now we have it all in written. By Vanuatu. We will now therefore proceed to take a decision on the oral amendment. Those in favor of the oral amendment introduced by Kuwait, please signify. Those against?

Abstentions? The Assembly is now voting on the oral amendment proposed by the representative of Kuwait. This is about, uh, uh, operative paragraph 11 that used to be in L68. Will all delegations confirm that the votes on the oral amendment proposed by Kuwait are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

I thank you. The result of the vote is as follows: in favor to this amendment, 33; against, 100; abstentions, 23. The oral amendment proposed by the representative of Kuwait is not adopted. The representative of Saudi Arabia has proposed an oral amendment on draft resolution A/80/L65, which was originally L67 OP2. In accordance with Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure, the Assembly shall now take a decision on the oral amendment. A recorded vote has been requested. We will now proceed to take a decision on the oral amendment. Those in favor of the oral amendment, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Assembly is now voting on the oral amendment proposed by the representative of Saudi Arabia. This concerns operative paragraph 2, whose content used to be in L.67. Will all delegations confirm that the votes on the oral amendment proposed by Saudi Arabia are accurately reflected on the screen. The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 34; against, 97. Abstentions 26. The oral amendment proposed by the representative of Saudi Arabia is not adopted. Since none of the amendments to A/80/L65 were adopted, we shall proceed now to take a decision on the whole on draft resolution A/80/L65. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/80/L65 entitled Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of draft resolution A/80/L65, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Assembly is now voting on draft resolution L65 entitled Advisory Opinion of the International Court Justice of on the obligation of states in respect of climate change. Will all delegations confirm that the votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 104. 41 against 8, abstentions 28. Draft Resolution A/80/L65 is hereby adopted. I'm thanking everybody for staying with us. And now, before giving the floor for explanation of vote after the vote, may I remind delegation that they are strongly urged to limit explanation of vote to 5 minutes, 7 minutes on behalf of a group, which should in any case not exceed 10 minutes. But as said before, we agreed to limit it to 5 and 7. As the first speaker, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Fiji. Many will follow: Italy, Philippines, Egypt, France, Malta, Australia, and many more. Please, Fiji.

Thank you, Madam President. I speak on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. And I align myself with statements that will follow from AOC and the Pacific Island Forum. We stand here at a moment of profound consequence, not merely for the Pacific, but for the community of nations and for the planet we hold in sacred trust for generations yet unborn. Peace Seeds unreservedly welcomes and fully supports the adoption of this landmark resolution. Madam President, on 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered a unanimous advisory opinion—the first time the world's highest court had examined the international legal framework applicable to climate change. Its message was unambiguous: climate obligations are not political aspirations; they are legal duties. Today, this Assembly gives that principle the political force it demands. We pay tribute to Vanuatu, and to the young law students of the University of the South Pacific, whose courage and vision made this moment possible. For the Pacific, the climate crisis is not a future scenario. It is saltwater in our wells. It is storm surges over our seawalls. It is the grief of communities watching ancestral lands disappear beneath the tide. When we say "existential threat," we speak not in metaphor. We speak from lived experience. Madam President, it is for this reason that the ICJ's affirmation of the continuity of statehood carries such profound significance for the Pacific Small Island Developing States. The Court affirmed that even if an entire landmass was lost and its people displaced, a State should still be presumed to continue as a legal entity. That loss of territory does not automatically strip a State of its sovereign status. For Pacific peoples who trace their identity to islands thousands of years in the making, this is an affirmation of survival. Legal, cultural and civilizational. PCEAS calls upon all Member States to honour this not merely as a legal theory, but as a commitment to practical solidarity—through sustained adaptation financing, the protection of maritime entitlements and managed relocation when necessary. The Court further affirmed that the 1.5°C target is legally binding. That states must cut emissions in line with the best available science, and that those who have violated their obligations owe full reparation. This resolution operationalizes those findings. PSEED will hold ourselves to these obligations. We call upon major emitting economies to do the same—not as a favor to small islands, but as a duty owed to humanity and to the precious planet we share. Madam President, we are a seafaring people. We have navigated the largest ocean on Earth by the stars and by the wisdom of those who came before us. We do not come to this hall asking for mercy. We come demanding justice—justice that is today grounded in the authoritative voice of the world's highest court. The Pacific will not disappear and neither will our resolve. Vinaka valevu. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Fiji. Just as a reminder and maybe in the spirit of solidarity, we have 1.5 hours left. We have a very long list of speakers, so if we want to hear all of you by today, please to be as sharp and short as possible. As the next speaker, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy, followed by the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll be as fast as possible. Italy aligns itself with the statement that will be delivered by the European Union and wishes to add the following remarks in its national capacity. We co-sponsored and voted in favour of the resolution as submitted by Vanuatu and the core group. Group, and so allow me to thank Vanuatu for its leadership in conducting the negotiations. We also would like to reiterate our support for the work of the International Court of Justice, including in the exercise of its advisory functions. Over the last 3 months, our discussions have demonstrated our collective commitment to addressing climate change and the threats it poses globally, and especially to those in particularly vulnerable situations such as the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. Allow me to make also 3 brief points. First, With regard to the energy transition, Italy promotes the model of technological neutrality and competitive green transition based on all technologies approach. This model aims to identify the best solutions for sustainable development based on scientific evidence and national priorities while safeguarding the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries which are vital, vital to the manufacturing sector and to achieving climate neutrality and sustainable economic and social costs. Second, Expansive interpretation of the Court's opinion should be avoided in general, and in particular in the implementation of OP 10, including with regard to the application of the principle of non-refoulement in the context of climate change. Third and lastly, we underline that dialogue and climate diplomacy, in particular through the normative and institutional instruments available under UNFCCC, remain the best avenues for engaging with these complex issues. In this spirit, Italy will continue to work together with the rest of the international community in all relevant forums. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam President. The Philippines is honored to be part of the core group led by Vanuatu. We welcome the adoption of the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligation of States in respect of climate change. Today, this Assembly has reaffirmed the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes through its principal judicial organ. The World Court's advisory opinion clarifies that the law— that the law that already binds States. For the Philippines, this advisory opinion arising from the most inclusive of proceedings is a legal milestone long overdue. As our President said before this Assembly, the time to talk about the if and when of climate change has long since passed. Climate change, he said, is the greatest global threat, and the effects of climate change are uneven and reflect an historical injustice. Those who are least responsible suffer the most. When we appeared before the Court, we spoke as a country on the frontlines of the climate crisis. We recalled 7 destructive typhoons barreling through our country within a single month, flooding homes, destroying livelihoods, sweeping away years of development gains, and taking precious lives. We said then, and we say again today, our resilience, as well as those of other climate vulnerable states, cannot be the world's excuse for inaction. We also placed before the court the realities of a mid-ocean archipelagic state Super typhoons, storm surges, extreme heat, ocean warming, acidification, coral bleaching, and threats to food security and the livelihood of millions of fisherfolk. These are current realities for developing countries and vulnerable peoples. Madam President, the rule of law matters most when the vulnerable need protection and when the consequences of inaction are irreversible. The Philippines emphasized before the Court that climate change bears directly on international peace and security. Rising seas, extreme weather, and resource scarcity destabilize regions, aggravate conflict, displace peoples, and imperil sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also underscored that climate change is a human rights crisis. This is why the Philippines supported L.65 as stable. The resolution is measured and balanced. It welcomes the advisory opinion, and it calls for good faith compliance with the obligations identified by the Court. It calls for an orderly follow-up within the United Nations system. Today is a test of whether we are able to respond to the legal clarity provided by the Court. The Philippines welcomes the adoption of L65 and stands ready to work with all member states to give life to the advisory opinion faithfully, effectively, and with urgency. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the representative of the Philippines, and I now give the floor to the representative of France.

Merci, Madame la Présidente. Thank you, Madam President. Today, with the adoption of the resolution brought forward by Vanuatu, we are here grateful for having brought this decision before the Assembly. The international community has made an important step forward. The negotiations were an opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions, and while the text may not respond to all of the expectations of delegations, it is based on a solid balance in an international context marked by significant divisions. First of all, the resolution reaffirms the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Science clearly establishes their role in climate change, and this is taking place at a key point in the— when we look towards the next international climate events. The increase in energy costs also underscore the vulnerability caused by this dependence and underscore the needs to transition towards clean energy. France is engaging in these actions through our national roadmap. Second, the text underscores the importance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice clarifying the obligation of states vis-à-vis climate change. The court does not— it recalls the freely negotiated obligations of states under treaties to protect climate systems, and the court underscores the need for ambitious implementation that's compatible with objectives to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels in line with the Paris Agreement. This was based on scientific diagnoses shared by thousands of experts across the world working together independently within the IPCC. France is committed to the authority of the court and throughout the negotiations has sought to ensure that the negotia— The resolution faithfully reflects the resolu— the ruling of the 23rd of July, 2025. It also calls upon the Secretary-General to report on the obligations under the court ruling, and this is a balanced approach, and also to reaffirm collective actions for international climate protection. By way of conclusion, in an international context marked by many crises, France welcomes this General Assembly decision, and we will continue to defend ambitious climate action, multilateralism, respect for international law, and a science-based approach for sustainable development and for future generations.

Thank you. I thank the representative of France, and I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt, followed by Malta, Australia, then New Zealand.

Thank you, President. Egypt is proud to have voted in favor of this resolution. I shall make 3 points. First, the ICJ advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change is an historic turning point. It provides an authoritative account of the primary rules of customary and conventional international law applicable to the protection of the climate system and the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This advisory opinion confirms that the obstacle facing efforts to address the climate crisis and achieve climate justice is the lack of political will and not the inadequacy of the legal and normative architecture on environmental protection. We hope that this advisory opinion will contribute to mobilizing political support for taking effective action to address what the court itself described as an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet. Second, Egypt welcomes the court's authoritative determinations on the scope and content of rules of customary international law applicable to protecting the climate system, other parts of the environment, and transboundary resources. These include the obligation not to cause significant harm, which requires acting with due diligence and ensuring that projects or activities that have the that have the potential to adversely affect the environment are undertaken after conducting environmental impact assessments and with prior notification and consultation with potentially affected States. In this regard, Egypt recalls and emphasizes the Court's— —obligation to prevent significant transboundary harm under customary international law is an obligation erga omnes. Third, Egypt voted in favor of the amendment proposed on OP3. It is regrettable that this proposed amendment has not been adopted. Egypt emphasizes that the Court has determined that States Parties to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement are duty-bound to assist developing countries for the purposes of mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation. These conventional obligations are further reinforced by the duty of cooperation, which is firmly established in customary international law. For Egypt and other developing countries, climate finance is an urgent obligation and an urgent priority without which adaptation and a just transition will remain an unfulfilled promise. This obligation rests on the CBDR principle. Those who contributed most to the climate crisis bear the greatest responsibility to finance measures to respond to the climate crisis and mitigate its effects. Pursuant to their obligations, developed states must honor their commitments and scale up financial assistance, capacity-building efforts, debt relief, and technology transfer to further enable developing countries in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the representative of Egypt, and I now give the floor to the representative of Malta on behalf of the European Union, followed by Australia, New Zealand, then Canada.

Thank you, Madam President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. I will then deliver a statement in my national capacity. The candidate countries of Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Andorra, San Marino, themselves align themselves with this statement. In the interest of time, we are delivering an abridged version, and we also ask that the full version be put into the official record. We thank Vanuatu for its continued leadership in this process as well as the core group. Today's resolution is a testament to our collective engagement, responsibility, and shared aim to address the effects of climate change according to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on obligations of states in relation to climate change. The EU and its member states are united in their staunch support for the court and more broadly for the strict observance and development of international law. We are also committed to promoting the individual and collective action of states to to prevent and respond to the threat of climate change and to show solidarity with those particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This is not just a policy decision, it's a necessity. We are therefore determined to deliver on our climate policy with a particular focus on climate adaptation and mitigation. In this context, climate finance is not only something we have committed to under the UNFCC and the Paris Agreement, but also a tangible way of expressing solidarity with those most affected. The EU and its member states have collectively been the biggest contributors in the world. We all need to support and accelerate its implementation, including increasing access to climate finance and mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources. Madam President, turning to the resolution, we would like to make four observations. First, we stand firmly behind the unequivocal references to the collective temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, including by tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency by 2030, as well as by transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner so as to reach net zero by 2050. Secondly, we welcome the Court's authoritative interpretation of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of national circumstances. The court has been clear, though, the status of developing and developed countries is dynamic and CBDRC should be read in this light. The court distinguishes between developed states, least developed states, and states that have progressed considerably in their development since the conclusion of the UNFCCC in 1992. Thirdly, we reiterate the authoritative value of the court's advisory opinion on all legal issues arising from climate change including in relation to sea level rise. The court made a significant contribution to the clarification of the current state of international law in this area and expressed the view that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. References to the progressive development of the law in the resolution should be read in line with the advisory opinion. As a general remark, also beyond the specific aspect, Practical issues which were not addressed in the advisory opinion require further consideration and discussion in the spirit of cooperation embodied by the advisory opinion. Lastly, regarding the request for a report by the Secretary-General, the envisaged report should not go beyond the scope of the advisory opinion, nor seek to establish new mechanisms or engage in any determination of state responsibility. The report should ensure a balance between expertise in legal matters and knowledge of the climate change architecture, also to prevent the risk of undermining the climate change architecture as established by the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, as the court did not question the effectiveness of the existing architecture, nor did it identify any gaps within it. The report should instead ensure coordination, coherence, and complementarity with the climate change architecture, especially under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The EU and its member states intend to contribute to this process with continued climate ambition. Madam President, the EU and its member states are pleased to have constructively engaged in the process that led to the adoption of this resolution. We will continue to work together with the rest of the international community in all relevant fora in order to address the effects of climate change. I will now speak on my national capacity's behalf. Madam President, Malta is proud to have co-sponsored this resolution. We commend Vanuatu and the core group for their tireless efforts throughout the negotiations and thank all those who supported the text. We want to commend the group of students from the University of the South Pacific. Their determination to bring the issue of climate change to the International Court of Justice 6 years ago serves as a powerful reminder that the voice of the next generation can indeed move the world. Colleagues, in 1988, Malta spearheaded the initiative to recognize climate change as a common concern of humankind. Through Resolution 43/53, the GA declared that climate change affected humanity as a whole and should be confronted with a global framework and international collaboration. Today's resolution marks a defining milestone in the realization of that vision. The advisory opinion serves as a watershed moment affirming this principle by clarifying that the full breadth of international law applies to addressing climate change and that cooperation is not a matter of choicer states, but a pressing need and a legal obligation. By adopting this resolution, the international community moves beyond simply acknowledging the court's work to actively upholding the legal integrity of our multilateral system. The affirmations on the continuity of statehood and the essential legal certainty regarding maritime zones are of profound importance to small island states like Malta, small island developing states, and low-lying coastal states. These affirmations provide essential reassurance that the legal order can and must adapt to safeguard the enduring rights of states, especially in the face of unprecedented change brought about by sea level rise. Madam President, the Court framed it best: climate change is an existential problem of planetary proportions that will require all fields of human knowledge as well as human will and wisdom to address. Adopting this resolution is an opportunity to reflect on our collective progress, and most importantly, to recommit to the urgent work that remains to be done. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Malta, who was speaking in his national capacity and also on behalf of the European Union. And I now give the floor to the representative of Australia, followed by New Zealand, then Canada.

Thank you, President. And first, let me congratulate our friends and colleagues from Vanuatu for your inspiring leadership of this issue. Climate change affects every nation, but nowhere more acutely than in the Pacific. For our region, this is not a distant warning, but a daily reality. Pacific countries have long led the world in calling for stronger climate action. This includes as proponents of the General Assembly's successful request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice Justice, as well as the present resolution to welcome the court's unanimous opinion. We commend the Pacific and Pacific youth for their global leadership. Australia is proud to stand with you in supporting this resolution. The breadth of support matters. Climate change cannot be solved by any country acting alone. It demands global cooperation, and multilateral engagement remains Australia welcomes the Court's landmark advisory opinion, which is an important contribution to make in relation to the obligations of all states in responding to the climate emergency. We are pleased the Court favourably considered the Pacific Islands Forum initiatives on climate change-related sea level rise, an issue of profound significance for our region, and one rightly highlighted in this resolution. We look forward to continued discussions on sea level rise at the United Nations and are proud to be co-facilitating negotiations on a political declaration for our leaders to adopt in September this year. President, Australia is committed to upholding its obligations under international law to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, as negotiations on this resolution have demonstrated, states continue to hold differing views on the scope and content of some of those obligations. Australia is carefully considering the Court's opinion alongside the views we addressed in our submissions to the Court. We engaged constructively throughout negotiations to seek to bridge divides in the resolution, and we commend the efforts of Vanuatu and the core group for their diplomacy in presenting a text that achieved widespread support. Our support for this resolution should not be interpreted as our agreement with every element of the advisory opinion, nor should it be read as our acceptance of the way the resolution interprets each of the court's conclusions. Rather, our support reflects our recognition of the seriousness of the climate crisis, the need for concrete action, and the positive role of the International Court of Justice's opinion in support of global efforts. We hope this resolution will help galvanize practical efforts to protect the climate system and those most at risk. Just as the world is not static, a state's capacity to reduce emissions and respond to climate impacts changes over time. Historical responsibility remains important, and as a developed country, Australia will continue to do our part. But meeting the goals of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement will require sustained ambition, especially from major emitters past, present, and future. In Australia's view, the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement provide the primary forum for advancing climate action, including through processes like the Global Stocktake. The case for multilateralism has never been clearer, nor has the direction of travel towards a low-carbon development. As President of the negotiations of COP 31, Australia will continue to work with all countries to accelerate global climate action at home and in support of our region.

Thank you. I thank the representative of Australia, and I now give the floor to the representative of New Zealand, followed by Canada, then the Solomon Islands.

President, this resolution does not fully reflect New Zealand's position on the legal issues addressed by the International Court of Justice, Justice. nor does it reflect all of the views expressed by the Court. However, New Zealand commends and congratulates Vanuatu for its work on this resolution and its strong advocacy on behalf of Pacific Island countries. In keeping with Pacific advocacy on climate change and resilience issues, New Zealand voted today in support of this resolution. We have also voted against amendments that would have had the effect of upsetting the outcome of the negotiations led ably by Vanuatu and the core group and that have been held over the last 3 months. New Zealand also observes that to be effective against the impacts of climate change, all major emitters including Russia, China, India, the European Union, and the United States must take effective action. New Zealand is pleased that the resolution recalls the court's findings on the preservation of maritime zones and continuity of statehood in the face of on Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise, which endorse key elements of the Pacific Islands Forum position. New Zealand is a strong supporter of a rules-based international system and of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. New Zealand considers it important and appropriate that the General Assembly take formal note of the Court's advisory opinion. I thank you.

I thank the representative of New Zealand And I now give the floor to the representative of Canada.

Madame la Présidente.

Madam President, Canada thanks Vanuatu and the group of drafters for their leadership in the work on this important resolution. The fight against climate change is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most significant global challenges of our time. and Canada is firmly committed to international efforts to tackle it. Canada reaffirms its resolute support to the international regime to fight against climate change and welcomes the growing momentum behind clarifying the obligations of states in this area. Canada supports the essential role of the International Court of Justice. To render non-legally binding advisory opinions on legal questions that are submitted to the court by bodies or international bodies or institutions duly authorized to do so, which was the case of the advisory opinion which is the subject of this resolution. It's in this context, therefore, that Canada welcomes and appreciates the contributions of the International Court of Justice to enhance understanding of existing international law on climate change, whilst also reserving the possibility to diverge when it comes to the interpretation of certain aspects of the advisory opinion.

In this context, we also welcome the Court's recognition that states' contributions to climate change and their capacities to respond are not static but continue to evolve. Canada notes, however, that the language of the resolution omits some of the material nuances in the advisory opinion and introduces elements that fall outside its scope. The resolution therefore provides an incomplete and at times inaccurate account of the advisory opinion. Additionally, Canada is of the view that customary international law is not yet fully developed, but in the context of climate change. The resolution's reference to compliance with obligations under international law must be understood as limited to obligations that have crystallized under international law. Canada notes that the resolution's affirmation of continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise goes beyond the Court's own discussion and risks prejudging legal questions under active consideration in other forums. Lastly, Canada reaffirms that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement are the primary forums for negotiating the global response to climate change. This resolution must not be construed to modify or supplement obligations under those agreements, nor to prejudge ongoing negotiations within them. Canada looks forward to continuing working with others under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, as well as other relevant forums, to advance understanding of and compliance with international climate obligations. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Canada, and I now give the floor to the representative of the Solomon Islands, followed by Belize.

Madam President, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members with a presence in New York. Today's adoption of this resolution marks an important moment for the international community and for all nations confronted with the accelerating impacts of climate change. It represents a further step in ongoing international efforts to promote clarity, fairness, and legal certainty in the global response to the climate crisis, drawing on the landmark unanimous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. For the Pacific, the issues of maritime zones and the continuity of statehood remain of particular importance. These reflect the longstanding positions of the Pacific Islands Forum leaders, including those set out in the Pacific Islands Forum's 2021 Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise and the 2023 Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons. Our leaders have been clear: Maritime zones established and deposited in accordance with UNCLOS and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall remain unchanged, and the statehood and the sovereignty of Pacific Island nations will endure notwithstanding the physical impacts of climate change-related sea level rise. We underscore the importance of the collective temperature goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, which the resolution calls upon all States to pursue. For the Pacific, 1.5 degrees is not merely an inspirational benchmark; it remains the critical threshold for the survival, security, livelihoods, and well-being of our peoples and cultures. Madam President, the Pacific Islands Forum acknowledges with deep appreciation the leadership of Vanuatu, who took up the call initiated by young Pacific Islanders and gave life to the vision in taking forward the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change to the ICJ. This achievement reflects the strength of Pacific leadership and unity of purpose that has long characterized our region's engagement on climate change. We acknowledge Vanuatu's and the core group's effort in ensuring this resolution remains with the spirit of the advisory opinion. We trust that member states will approach this resolution in a spirit of cooperation and shared responsibility, with a view to enabling a constructive outcome that advances our common commitment to a just stable and sustainable future. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the Solomon Islands, and I now give the floor to the representative of Belize.

Thank you, Madam President. Belize has the honor to speak on behalf of the members of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS. AOSIS celebrates the adoption of this resolution welcoming the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change. This is a historic moment. The unanimous opinion of the world's principal judicial organ now receives the collective recognition of this General Assembly. Madam President, for Small Island Developing States, this resolution provides essential legal certainty on maritime zones and the continuity of statehood in the face of sea-level rise in operative paragraphs 6 and 7 by recalling the Court's conclusions and affirming key consequences of those conclusions. On maritime zones, the Court's conclusions in paragraph 362 are not a policy preference. It is an identification of existing international law. The Court found that UNCLOS does not require states parties in the context of sea level rise to update their charts or geographical coordinates once they have been duly established in conformity with the Convention. This conclusion rests on a solid legal foundation. The International Law Commission conducted a comprehensive study of state practice and found it to be consistent. To our knowledge, no state has submitted a change in baselines to the Secretary-General because of loss of land. Only one State has restated their baselines, and that was due to land reclamation. This is not a rule being invented by the Court or the ILC. It is a rule that is being recognized based on the consistent actions of States and that is supported by the Convention and the legal principles underpinning it. We are aware that some States may contest this rule. That is their right. The persistent objector doctrine exists for precisely this purpose, but disagreement does not negate the existence of the rule itself. Customary international law does not require consensus, it requires consistent state practice and opinio juris. Specially affected states have demonstrated clear common interpretation through our consistent practice regarding maritime zones. Our voice should carry particular legal weight on this issue. On statehood, the legal foundation is also clear. The ICJ found in paragraph 363 that the disappearance of land territory would not necessarily entail the loss of statehood. This is not a novel proposition. Since the founding of the United Nations, no state has involuntarily ceased to exist. All dissolutions and reformation of states resulted from the express consent of the state itself. This consistent state practice reflects the existing rule. The ILC's conclusions on statehood reflected and the Court affirmed it. Today's affirmation converts that finding into collective political and legal recognition by the General Assembly. Statehood and sovereignty persist regardless of sea level rise. Our membership in international organizations will also persist as a necessary corollary. Madam President, the resolution also advances climate justice through critical gains, including recognizing CBDR RC as a guiding principle across customary international law, recognizing historical patterns influencing climate vulnerability, affirming the state responsibility framework with full remedies, and operationalizing the duty to cooperate on finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Critically, The court also clarified that the principle of lex specialis does not allow the climate change treaties to exclude other rules of international law from applying to climate obligations. Climate change is not governed solely by the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Human rights law, the law of the sea, customary environmental law, and the law of state responsibility all apply. Climate justice requires the application of the full breadth of international law, not a siloed approach that limits accountability to the climate treaties regime alone. It also establishes a structured pathway forward through the Secretary-General's report and continued General Assembly consideration. It allows the international community to operationalize the Court's findings through enhanced cooperation and implementation without undermining the ongoing work at the UNFCCC. Madam President, EOSIS thanks the Core Group led by Vanuatu for their leadership throughout this process. When future generations look back at this moment, they will ask whether we rose to meet the defining crisis of our time with the full force of international law. Today, this General Assembly answers yes. We recognize what the Court has clarified. We affirm what that clarity provides. And we commit to advancing compliance with these obligations for the sake of Small Island Developing States and for the planet we all share. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Belize, and I now give the floor to the representative of Guyana, who will be speaking on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you, Madam President. I make this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean community, CARICOM. CARICOM welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the advisory opinion of the International of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. We thank the delegation of Vanuatu and the core group of countries for their work on the text and commend the months of negotiations towards reaching broad agreement which led to today's resolution. On March 29, 2023, this Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 77/2023, COP/276, in which it requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on questions related to the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and on the legal consequences that would flow from these obligations. A record 96 states presented oral statements in the hearing, the highest level of participation in a proceeding in the history of the ICJ, reflecting the critical importance that states place on the issue of climate change. CARICOM member states welcomed the unanimous advisory opinion of the Court, which was delivered on July 23rd, 2025. As small island developing states and low-lying coastal states, our countries are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. As acknowledged by the Court, the questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem. Rather, they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet, which requires political and social follow-up to the legal findings. The value of the opinion includes its holistic consideration of the international treaties, customary international law, and international human rights law that govern the questions put to the Court, and a clear elucidation of the legal obligations that arise therefrom. CARICOM emphasizes the importance of respect for the International Court of Justice, including in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, to an international order based on the rule of law. Significant is the Court's opinion that a breach by a State of any of the obligations identified by the Court in relation to climate change constitutes an internationally wrongful act entailing the responsibility of that State from which specified legal consequences would follow. Madam President, the resolution that was just adopted reflects key elements of the opinion and importantly presents follow-up measures that can be taken by States in compliance with their respective obligations under international law. We welcome the inclusion in the provisional agenda of the 83rd session the item titled "Follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change." In CARICOM's view, it is crucial that we not only welcome the opinion in this moment but also ensure meaningful follow-up. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Guyana who spoke on behalf Caricom. And I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Madam President, the Russian Federation has consistently supported the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the world organization, and we highly value its advisory function. The advisory opinion of July 23rd, 2025 is an important document, one that merits our attention. At the same time, it's important to recall that the advisory opinions of the Court in accordance with Article 65 of its statute are not legally binding. They do not create new international legal obligations, and they cannot be considered as or replace norms that have been agreed by States states within specialized treaty regimes. However, today we have been considering not an advisory opinion of the Court, but rather a draft resolution of the General Assembly, which throughout the entire negotiating process a number of delegations continued to have serious questions about. This document provides a selective and expansive interpretation of the provisions of the advisory opinion. It essentially attempts to make it mandatory in nature. The consultations were far from the principle of multilateralism and the spirit of consensus. The proposals of a majority of delegations, as well as their calls for line-by-line work on the text, were ignored. The draft selectively cites the conclusions of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and the outcomes of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, ignoring many key elements which are fundamentally important for developing countries, such as financing obligations and adaptation. In the document, there is a reference to Resolution 76/300 and the so-called right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This construct is not enshrined in any universal international treaty, and the resolution that the authors are referring to was not adopted by consensus. 8 states, including Russia, abstained during the vote. Attempts to present this resolution as evidence of the formation of a new norm of international law do not hold Water. The Russian Federation does not agree with the description of the obligations to protect the climate system as erga omnes obligations. We proceed from the understanding that the main source of climate-related norms is the specialized treaty architecture, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. Attempts to make the obligations in this area universal in the absence of the directly expressed consent of all states would contradict the fundamental principles of international law, including the principle of the sovereign equality of states. The draft resolution creates the false impression that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is allegedly a mandatory goal. In Article 2, Paragraph 1A of the Paris Agreement, it states, and I quote, "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius." End quote. 1.5 degrees is an ambitious political goal, but in no way is it a legally binding threshold. The decisions of the Conference of the Parties that the authors refer to are political rather than normative. Imposing 1.5 degrees Celsius through a resolution of the General Assembly as allegedly being an obligation is an attempt to revisit the Paris Agreement in circumvention of the established procedures. The draft resolution calls for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, and yet neither the UNFCCC nor the Paris Agreement contain a prohibition on their extraction or use. Moreover, in its advisory opinion, the Court clearly stated that greenhouse gas emissions by themselves do not constitute an unlawful act. On the whole, as far as energy is concerned, we proceed from the understanding that the provisions of paragraphs 28, 29, and 154 of the outcome of the first global stocktake, that is, Decision 1/CMA.5, they are the result of a complex compromise and must be considered in their entirety and as they are interrelated. In connection with the reference to the advisory opinion of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea from the 21st of May, 2024, we note that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 does not provide independent or individual-specific obligations in respect of climate change, and combating the negative consequences of that phenomenon does not fall within its scope. In that regard, we consider that from the very beginning, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to provide conclusions on climate-related issues. Many States Parties to the Convention share that position. The draft resolution refers to the principle of non-refoulement as it applies to persons that have moved across borders in connection with climate factors. The principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is related to threats of persecution or threat to life. No universal consent for extending that principle to so-called climate migration exists. The Russian delegation also does not support the request for a Secretary-General's report on ways to advance compliance with all obligations, analyzing possible gaps in international efforts to combat climate change. This is a direct duplication of work that is being done within the framework of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Creating a parallel process under the auspices of the General Assembly will lead to a waste of resources. It will undermine the fragile consensus within the Conference of the Parties to the FCCC, and it will lead to the fragmentation of the international climate regime. Madam President, the results of the vote on this resolution, the number of amendments that were submitted to it, and states' statements expressing clear discontent with its provisions are an ambiguous indication that nothing in its text can be considered to be evidence of the emergence of any new norms of international law or any obligations under international law. Consequently, there is not, nor can there be, any basis for asserting the existence of opinio juris. The Russian Federation calls for the continuation of constructive cooperation in the climate sphere on the basis of genuine consensus within the specialized negotiating formats, first and foremost, the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. This draft unfortunately goes in the opposite direction. It imposes contentious non-consensus elements, ignoring states' positions, undermining the integrity of the climate regime, and it creates parallel unjustified mechanisms. The Russian Federation pays the most serious attention to combating climate change. However, we cannot support a text that undermines the consensus nature of multilateral work and which would lead to the formation of narrow coalitions of interest to the detriment of the universal approach. It is well known that global problems require universal solutions and the unity of all states. The draft resolution that we considered today has led to division, and that is why we voted against it. We are convinced that solving climate change-related problems is something that can only be done together in accordance with the principle of good faith. We intend to actively continue this work within the framework of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and other specialized climate treaties. In conclusion, I would like to register our disagreement with the procedural interpretation that was provided by the President of the General Assembly today. We proceed from the understanding that all procedural matters are covered in the rules of procedure, uh, and do not fall outside the bounds of that. And so we consider that this requires additional attention. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation, and I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil, followed by Burkina Faso, then Timor-Leste.

Madam President, as current President of COP30, Brazil commends Vanuatu and the core group for bringing forward this important resolution and for their continued commitment to raising global ambition on climate change. At a time of increasingly severe impacts, collective action solidarity and trust in multilateralism are more necessary than ever. Brazil also recalls the outcomes achieved under its presidency of COP30 in Belém. The conference marked a clear shift from negotiation to implementation. It advanced stronger multilateralism and broader societal mobilization. Under the concept of the Global Muchirão, COP30 delivered concrete results. These include enhanced NDC ambition, progress on adaptation finance, new indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, stronger synergies across climate, biodiversity, and development agendas, and new implementation platforms and partnerships. Brazil attached great importance to a climate multilateralism grounded in consensus, universal universality, equity, and international law. We also value the central role of the International Court of Justice. In this spirit, we engaged constructively throughout the negotiations. Although Brazil voted in favor and supports the objectives of the resolution, we consider that certain elements could have been further refined, particularly through a more inclusive negotiating process, —allowing for line-by-line discussions and the full and meaningful engagement of all Member States. On operative paragraph 9, we recall that climate obligations cannot be interpreted nor implemented without the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. As recognized by the Court, CBDRRC guides the interpretation of all obligations under international environmental law. Brazil therefore understands the reference to respective international obligations in OP9 as reflecting differentiation, including based on historical emissions. We stress that the absence of an explicit reference to CBDRRC does not remove this differentiation. It must not justify claims against developing countries that disregard the structure of the climate regime. Developing countries share the right to development and must continue cooperating to address poverty and inequality, especially amid uncertainty on the delivery of climate finance and means of implementation. On operative paragraph 10, Brazil clarifies that the advisory opinion does not create new legal obligations. It clarifies existing ones under relevant treaties, customary law, and general principles. References to obligations in relation to the Court's findings should therefore be understood as obligations clarified, not established, by the Court. Brazil also underscores the central role of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement as the main Forum for Climate Negotiations. Efforts to accelerate action should not bypass inclusive and negotiated multilateral processes. Consensus may be demanding, but it remains essential for legitimacy and durable outcomes. Finally, Brazil abstained on all amendments. This was done to preserve the overall balance of the text and the spirit of constructive engagement. Madam President, Brazil recognizes and supports the value of this resolution. We reaffirm our commitment to ambitious, equitable, science-based, and implementation-oriented climate action in full accordance with the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Brazil, and I now give I give the floor to the representative of Burkina Faso, followed by Timoleste and then Liechtenstein. Thank you.

Merci, Madame la Présidente.

Thank you, Madame President. Madame President, Burkina Faso commends the engagement of the General Assembly and its action to protect the environment and preserve the authority of the International Court of Justice. The adoption of this resolution marks a major turning point in the consolidation of international environmental law. Burkina Faso pays close attention to the question of climate change because we unjustly suffer the harmful effects of it. My country is one of the worst affected and the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to its geographical location, which exposes it to a wide range of environmental hazards. Including, uh, hydrometeorological and geophysical ones, which are directly exacerbated by climate change, which in turn gives rise to socioeconomic crises. Burkina Faso's vulnerability to the effects of climate change also is related to the structure of its economy. More than 86% of the population still depend on agriculture or livestock, which are sectors that are sensitive to climate effects. The direct consequences of climate change affecting Burkina Faso are primarily drought, desertification, and floods. And yet my country only contributes 0.12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. There is therefore an injustice which one way or another must be rectified, starting with the clarification of States' obligations in respect of climate change. That is why Burkina Faso joined the consensus that led to the adoption of Resolution 77/276 of the General Assembly, and which led to the advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. My country actively participated in the proceedings before the Court, including through the submission of a written report and written comments. Madam President, my country is on the whole satisfied with the conclusions that were arrived at unanimously by the Court in that they help clarify the obligations that states have under various different legal instruments, as well as the resulting legal consequences. That is why Burkina Faso felt it was important to join the core group that drafted this draft resolution to support and protect the conclusions of the Court under the leadership of the Republic of Vanuatu. The text of the resolution that we've just adopted is not perfect, but it has the merit of following negotiations between States, of recognizing the opinion of the International Court of Justice, of recalling the obligations that States have, and of creating a formal framework for following up on the implementation of the Court's conclusions. In light of the aforementioned, my delegation voted in favor of the resolution.

Thank you. I thank the representative of Burkina Faso, and I now give the floor to the representative of Timor-Leste.

Thank you, Madam President. Timor-Leste voted in favor of this resolution, first and foremost in support of the PSIDS. As an island state and LDC, Timor-Leste shares the experience of bearing the gravest consequences of climate change caused mainly by the industrialization and economic growth of but a few nations. In this context, Timor-Leste wishes to emphasize the importance of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. While all nations share a common duty to combat climate change, responsibilities must reflect historical contributions to the problem and respective capacities to address it. We are pleased to see that the principle of CBDR RC is central in the resolution, as it was in the opinions of both ITLOS and the ICJ. My delegation also expresses its appreciation to Vanuatu and the core group for their leadership and tireless efforts in steering this important process through extensive consultations. Madam President, Timor-Leste is firmly committed to sustaining sustainable development and has put climate action at the core of our national agenda. We are expanding and restoring mangroves, increasing protected areas, and promoting a low-impact nature-based economy. But we cannot do this without financial and technological transfers. It is therefore important to stress that developed states are still failing to fulfill their obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement to provide climate-related financial assistance, including for loss and climate change and damage. Furthermore, developed states continue to fall short, short on technology transfer obligations essential for developing countries to expand renewable energy and transition to low-carbon economies. Timor-Leste's vote in favor of today's resolution demonstrates its political commitment to address the climate crisis. It is equally based on the understanding that the resolution is non-binding and does not add to or amend states' existing obligations under international law with respect to climate change. These obligations are found first and foremost in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, as noted in the resolution itself. It should be noted that the resolution's language goes beyond that of the ICJ's opinion in several respects. In addition, the resolution's operative paragraphs do not reflect rules of customary international law or their crystallization, nor can the affirmative the collective vote of Timor-Leste be seen as reflecting any opinio juris to that effect, as other states have also noted. For example, the notably aspirational language of OP4 expresses a hope that states will take collective action to reach net zero by 2050 in a just, orderly, and equitable manner under the framework of the Paris Agreement and in light of different national circumstances. Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement reflects the understanding that reaching peak emissions will take longer for LDCs such as Timor-Leste. Indeed, to improve the well-being of our people, Timor-Leste cannot reach peak emissions in the short term. Timor-Leste affirms its commitment to cooperate with member states to work toward a low-carbon future. At the same time, as a SIDS and an LDC, and in accordance with its rights and obligations under international law as confirmed by the ICJ, Timor-Leste will continue to exercise its legal rights to development, including through utilizing its natural resources to provide essential needs such as health and education. These rights are further recognized in the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement and are in accordance with the principles of self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources. As stated in the Court's advisory opinion and further reflected in the resolution's preamble and in OP 9, there are no spatial rules of state responsibility when it comes to climate change. Under the rules of state responsibility under customary international law, in the words of the court, only an action or omission attributable to a state can give rise to international responsibility. Where reparation is claimed, it must be shown that the damage claim was factually and legally caused by a state, that there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus between an alleged wrongful act and that the damage can be proven in concreto. Timor-Leste wishes to take this opportunity to express its strong support for the International Court of Justice, including its advisory function, as echoed in the preamble of the resolution. Today, more than ever, resort to peaceful mechanisms such as the court or conciliation, as in the successful case of Timor-Leste and Australia, should be encouraged. Finally, Timor-Leste remains committed to the international legal order to strengthening global efforts to address climate change in a matter that is equitable, effective, and grounded in the principles of international law.

I thank you. I thank the representative of Timor-Leste, and I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

Thank you so much for the floor, Madam President. Madam President, The adoption of today's resolution marks a pivotal intersection between two of the most pressing challenges of our time: our collective determination to confront climate change and our shared commitment, commitment to upholding international law. The process that led to this advisory opinion was particularly commendable. Without the determination of young people worldwide, and the leadership of Vanuatu in mobilizing support for this advisory opinion, we might not be gathered here today. Liechtenstein is proud to have contributed actively to this process as a member of the core group that led the request for the advisory opinion and by co-sponsoring this follow-up resolution on its implementation. This advisory opinion is no an ordinary one. Adopted anonymously by the full bench of ICJ judges, it carries exceptional authority. Liechtenstein, alongside a record number of states and other stakeholders, submitted both written and oral statements, enabling the Court to consider a wide range of states' practice and legal views informing its opinion. A total of 91 written statements has been filed during these advisory proceedings, the highest number of written statements ever filed in advisory proceedings before the Court. This unprecedented level of participation reflects not only the global importance of the issue of climate change, but also the growing confidence of states in the Court as a source of clarity on complex legal issues.. In this context, this follow-up resolution had to meet two high expectations to succeed: first, to develop a text that faithfully translates the Court's findings into concrete action; and second, to gather the widest possible support among States to implement it. Liechtenstein regrets that despite efforts and compromise on all sides, consensus could not be maintained for the adoption of this resolution. We also acknowledge that some delegations would have preferred more ambitious goals for this text, while others would have taken a more conservative approach. However, the cross-regional group of co-sponsors, together with the good support in the vote, demonstrates a clear commitment by states to give full effect to the advisory opinion. This support is essential to build the foundation for continued action that will help us reach our common goal of protecting the environment. Given the landmark nature of this opinion, it was essential that the resolution faithfully reflects the Court's findings. We welcome the inclusion of the Court's conclusions in the preamble paragraphs, anchoring our action in its reasoning. We also greatly appreciate the efforts made including by those states most affected by climate change, to have the resolution mirror as closely as possible the ICJ advisory opinion, even when difficult compromises were required. In our view, the text strikes a careful balance, reflecting a genuine effort to capture the court's findings while paving the way for actionable follow-up by states. While not central to the opinion, The resolution could have reflected more accurately the court's findings on the linkage between the adverse impact of sea level rise and the right to self-determination. The court recognizes that sea level rise may affect the territorial integrity of states and the permanent sovereignty over natural resources with implications for the exercise of that right. These findings were echoed by the final report of the International Law Commission Study Group on Sea Level Rise. Regarding the impact of climate change on human rights, the Court underscored that states have obligations under international human rights law to respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to to protect our climate system. This actionable approach is reflected in the language of the resolution. Madam President, the adoption of this follow-up resolution forms part of a wider process that was set in motion by young climate advocates. It is our hope that this momentum will now return to their hands with tangible and positive outcomes, advancing our shared responsibility to build a more sustainable world with the conservation of the environment at its center. I thank you so much.

I thank the representative of Liechtenstein, and I now give the floor to the representative of India, followed by Peru, then Mexico.

Madam President, I take the floor to provide an explanation of my delegation's position on the resolution that has just been adopted. Madam President, there is no doubt that climate change is a major challenge facing our planet, and no single country can respond to this challenge alone. Climate action requires international solidarity and cooperation, and in India's view, the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement provide us an agreed-upon, equitable, and sophisticated architecture to realize our climate goals. All parties to the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement have, in good faith, undertaken ambitious commitments based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. For India, Cbdr-Rc and Equity is not a mere slogan but guides climate action. Those that have historically contributed to climate change bear the responsibility to provide the means of implementation to countries of the Global South so that they may be able to fulfill their ambitious climate targets. This is a fair expectation and indeed a legal obligation that clearly falls within the ambit of the UNFCCC architecture. Madam President, sustainable development and poverty eradication remain the overriding priorities of developing countries. Any transition in energy systems must therefore be just, orderly and equitable, taking into account the need for energy access, economic growth and social development. The resolution does not adequately recognize these imperatives and constrains policy space for developing countries. It is further a case of insult to injury that there is absolutely no reference to the necessity of developed countries continuing to take the lead in mitigation and providing adequate and predictable financing, technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries in order for them to undertake such transitions. The term climate finance appears nowhere in the text. It is now a well-documented fact that the climate finance goal agreed to in 2024 falls short of the needs of developing countries and deserved more attention in a resolution that deals with obligations of states in respect of climate change, particularly since the Court's advisory opinion itself does not shy away from doing so. This, in our view, is a serious omission. Furthermore, the draft resolution falls short of clearly reflecting the advisory and non-binding nature of the Court's opinion. We are therefore seriously concerned that the resolution undermines the sacrosanct architecture of the UNFCCC process by elevating an advisory opinion to a binding or quasi-binding status, attempting to impose obligations on developing countries that have not been multilaterally agreed upon. This is a dangerous precedent that we must all be wary of. Madam President, India further underscores that the nationally determined nature of climate action must be fully respected. The resolution prescribes specific mitigation pathways, imposes external benchmarks for ambition, and creates conditions that may invite judicial or quasi-judicial scrutiny of nationally nationally determined contributions. This seriously undermines national policy space and disrupts the bottom-up architecture of the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the references to the first global stocktake are inaccurate and lopsided. As reflected in Article 14 of the Paris Agreement, the global stocktake is intended to inform parties in updating and enhancing their actions and support in a nationally determined manner. It is not designed to create prescriptive or implementation-oriented obligations. However, the resolution calls for the implementation of specific elements, including paragraph 28, which was not consistent with the agreed mandate of the GST. We also regret that the resolution does not adequately reflect the full scope of the stocktake outcomes, including findings relating to adaptation gaps and means of implementation. Madam President, India engaged constructively during the negotiations of this resolution and clarified its concerns and positions at every stage. We are therefore disappointed that our concerns were not addressed despite our best efforts to find common ground. Yet India is a champion of climate action, having itself undertaken ambitious climate commitments in its recently updated NDCs by raising its emissions intensity reduction target to 47% by 2035 from 2005 levels committing to achieve 60% of installed electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2035, and strengthening its carbon sink target to 3.5 to 4 billion tons of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover, India walks the talk on climate ambition. Madam President, as a large country with diverse climatic zones from mountain ecosystems to coral reefs, and islands in the Indian Ocean, coupled with populations vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, India has deep sympathies with our brothers and sisters of the Pacific region and indeed with the wider SIDS community. The need to address historical injustice experienced by SIDS and their specific vulnerability to climate change is the basis of our development cooperation with the SIDS. India's track record in this regard speaks for itself. It is for this reason that despite our concerns not being addressed in this resolution, India did not vote against it. Several elements in the resolution, such as the exclusion of means of implementation for developing countries, are contrary to India's principal stand on climate action. The fact that the resolution is adopted by the General Assembly does not in itself create binding commitments for us. Our obligations arise only from outcomes adopted under the UNFCCC. Democracy process. Hence, in line with our stated position on climate change-related issues, India was not in a position to vote in favor of this resolution. India therefore supported the amendments to OPs 3, 4, and 11. On OP 2, India can only— could only take note of the advisory opinion of the court and therefore abstained on the amendment on this OP. Finally, in view of the aforementioned issues in the resolution, India abstained on the resolution. With the hope that our brothers and sisters from the Pacific region will understand our predicament. I thank you.

I thank the representative of India, and I now give the floor to representative of Peru.

Gracias, señora presidenta. Thank you, Madam President. Peru voted in favor of draft resolution L.65 given the the particular importance we attach to the rule of law in international instances and to the work of the International Court of Justice, as well as to the need for the General Assembly to adequately follow up on the advisory opinion of the court on the obligations of states with respect to climate change, requested by this assembly by way of resolution— the relevant resolution that was co-sponsored by my country. It must be underscored that Peru participated actively in the process before Court, both in the written stage as well as in the oral stage. In this regard, our support to the resolution adopted today reflects our sustained commitment to this process, to international law, to multilateral climate action, and to the respect for the competent fora for its negotiation and implementation. Peru also believes that climate change requires a collective response that is sustained and legally solid. In this regard, The clarification provided by the court contributes to reaffirming the fact that climate action must continue to be guided by relevant international obligations, cooperation between states, and by the need to respond in a just and effective manner to a threat that has a particularly acute effect on developing countries. In the same vein, Peru wishes to underscore some reservations on the text adopted it. First of all, we regret that the final text did not take up the reiterated appeal of Peru to have a more inclusive wording about the vulnerability of developing countries in Preamble paragraph 11. This concern was put on the table consistently throughout consultations on the zero draft as well as the subsequent revised versions. On the basis of a technical consideration rooted in the United Nations Framework Convention for climate change in the broadest framework of vulnerability in 4.8 that was— could be more inclusive and faithful when it comes to the circumstances of vulnerability recognized in the convention. Peru meets 7 of the 9— of the 9. The modest and technical proposal wasn't accepted. Second, Peru recognizes that the final test is, um, more— well, the institutional follow-up by the General Assembly must be strictly complementary to the existing climate regime within the framework of the Framework Agreement and the Paris Agreement. In our view, this is a particularly sensitive area where it is necessary to act with precaution in order to avoid the creation of parallel institutional, um, tracks. It's also necessary to have a more transparent and inclusive process. Broader participation from the membership would have strengthened the legitimacy of the process and would have fostered more perspectives for consensus, um, using more text-based negotiations, including it being projected in the room, as well as more open opportunities for state member states to take the floor could have contributed to a more inclusive and less selective process in the final stage of negotiations. President, when it comes to the amendments presented, Peru wishes to underscore the fact that pursuant to our substantive position on each and every one of them and to the procedural development of their consideration in this session, we— there was a differentiated position. We voted against the motion geared towards submitting, um, different amendments as a package. We think that we could have acted on each package depending on their different merits. We voted against, um, the one on OP2 because we believe that this, um, in due due reflected the rulings of the court. Also paragraph, um, 11, we abstained from that in line with precaution expressed by my delegation, and we abstained also on the vote, uh, in— on the package on operative paragraphs 3 and 4 due to their different nature and the procedural, um, approach finally adopted. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the reserves, the final text reflects significant improvements including a clearer structure, better alignment with the discoveries of the court and a more attenuated approach to institutional follow-up at the Assembly. On this basis, bearing in mind our constant support to the process before the court since the beginning, Peru voted in favor of the resolution. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Peru, and I now give the floor to representative of Mexico.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Madam President. Mexico welcomes the adoption of this resolution. We are convinced that its adoption is a step in the right direction to continue multilateral efforts in order to address climate change. We reiterate our commitment to the International Court of Justice as the main judicial body of the United Nations. Its advisory role is authoritative. It provides clarity and it guides member states in the fulfillment of their international obligations. Furthermore, if we may, we wish to express the reasons behind our votes on the amendments. On the substance, in terms of OP2, We believe that the inclusion of the expression "as appropriate" dilutes the obligations identified by the court. From our perspective, the obligations identified as erga omnes do not allow for any conditionalities. On OP3, my delegation recalls that while the Paris Agreement may establish as an objective maintaining global average temperatures well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The court established that the 1.5 degrees were established as the consensus goal based on the best available science. Furthermore, while Mexico supports the Paris Agreement and the decisions made by the COPs, we believe in this case that it is necessary to prioritize the text as a whole that reflects a delicate balance between the conclusions of the advisory opinion and the positions of states. Without this changing the position of my country to continue to strengthen means for implementation in order to tackle climate change. As pertains OP 11, We continue to believe that it's valuable to include this issue on the agenda of the 83rd session of the Assembly, in particular in light of the report to be drafted by the Secretary-General on OP-10. We recall that the advisory opinion has been a procedure before the court that saw a huge amount of interest from the international community. 96 states and 11 international bodies participated in the proceedings, showing the importance of the issue being dealt with. As established by the Court, climate change constitutes one of the most significant challenges of our time, and it requires social and political action. Adding follow-up to the advisory opinion as an agenda item and engaging in a balance exercise 3 years after it was admitted, we— is in our view adequate and necessary. In terms of the form, we appreciate the fact that the process was transparent and inclusive. All delegations had the opportunity to put forward proposed compromise texts. Mexico believes that the text constitutes a good basis to strengthen multilateral action and the implementation of the findings of the advisory opinion. Finally, given my country co-sponsored the text as a whole, the vote sought to preserve its integrity and the achievements made collectively during the negotiations. Thank you very much, Madam President.

I thank the representative of Mexico, and I now give the floor to the representative Representative of Pakistan, followed by Malaysia.

Madam President, Pakistan takes the floor to explain its vote on draft resolution A/80/L.65. Pakistan attaches the highest importance to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The Court's unanimous findings represent a landmark moment in clarifying states' obligations under international law in respect of climate change, and we believe the General Assembly had both the opportunity and the responsibility to reflect those findings fully and faithfully. However, Pakistan wishes to place on record its concerns regarding the consultative process. While we acknowledge the efforts of Vanuatu and the core group, the modality of consultations did not allow for substantive text-based negotiations among the broader membership. A resolution of this legal and political significance warranted a more inclusive and deliberative process. We regret that more time was not made available to achieve a text that could command broader consensus. On substance, Pakistan's principal concern is that the resolution does not faithfully or comprehensively reflect the court's findings as set out in its dispositive. The court identified distinct obligations under multiple treaty regimes that are absent from the text, including the obligation of UNFCCC parties to mitigate and adapt and cooperate, and the additional obligations of Annex I parties to take the lead by limiting emissions and enhancing sinks, as well as the obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, under the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and its Kigali Amendment, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UNCCD, as well as obligations under UNCLOS. A resolution that selectively engages with the dispositif risks creating the impression that the General Assembly has endorsed a partial reading of the court's opinion. That is not a message Pakistan is comfortable sending. On climate finance, Pakistan deeply regrets that the amendment tabled to operative paragraph 3 today did not succeed. This is not a peripheral issue. It is central to the court's findings and to the prospects of meaningful implementation of the court's findings. The failure to restore finance language to the amendment leaves a significant gap between this resolution and the advisory opinion it seeks to advance. On operative paragraph 4, we remain concerned that this paragraph selectively rewrites one paragraph from the COP28 Global Stocktake outcome without grounding it in the Court's own findings. The General Assembly is not the appropriate forum to selectively amplify or rewrite individual elements of the UNFCCC process. Pakistan also wishes to place on record its concerns regarding the treatment of non-refilement in operative paragraph The Court addressed human rights obligations in a broad and carefully qualified manner across different instruments and legal contexts. The resolution does not fully reflect that nuance. In particular, it draws an extended linkage between non-refoulement, Article 6 of the ICCPR, and climate change. Article 6 protects the inherent right to life. It does not in itself specifically regulate refoulement, nor was it drafted to address climate-related displacement. Any interpretation connecting these distinct legal areas must be approached with caution and with due regard to the limits of the court's reasoning. Pakistan does not consider this formulation to represent a settled or universally accepted position under international law, and we reserve our position on operative paragraph 8. Madam President, we wish to place on record that throughout the consultations, We consistently supported operative paragraphs 6 and 7 on sea level rise, statehood, and baselines. These provisions reflect the existential realities of small island developing states and are among the most significant practical expressions of the court's findings. Pakistan itself is among the countries most severely affected by climate change, bearing a disproportionate burden despite contributing least to historical emissions. It is from this shared experience that we stand in full solidarity with SIDS. The threats they face—rising seas, loss of territory, and questions about the continuity of their statehood—are not abstract legal questions. They are lived realities that demand the clearest possible affirmation from this Assembly, and this is why we supported OPs 6 and 7 throughout the negotiations. Madam President, on balance, Pakistan abstained on this resolution. We believe the advisory opinion deserved to be reflected more thoroughly, and with greater fidelity to the full dispositive. We will continue to advocate for the comprehensive implementation of States' obligations as identified by the Court, including on climate finance, mitigation, adaptation, and the rights of those most vulnerable, including of the Small Island Developing States. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Pakistan, and I will now give the floor to the representative of Malaysia, who will be our last speaker.

Thank you, Madam President. Malaysia wishes to make a brief explanation of the vote. Malaysia will submit its full statement in writing in due course. Malaysia voted in favor of this resolution. Malaysia expresses its appreciation to the co-facilitators, Vanuatu and the Core Group, for their efforts in steering the consultations on this important resolution. We also acknowledge the constructive engagement undertaken throughout the negotiation process and the efforts made to reflect the views and concerns of delegations. Malaysia recognizes the significance of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the importance of international cooperation in addressing climate change in a manner consistent with international law. Malaysia remains firmly committed to multilateral efforts to address climate change particularly through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. These instruments remain the primary international frameworks for negotiating and implementing the global response to climate change. In this regard, Malaysia emphasises that climate action must continue to be guided by equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries must be given full consideration, particularly in balancing climate ambition with sustainable development, poverty eradication, food and energy security, and a just transition. Madam President, Malaysia's support for this resolution is based on several important understandings. First, Malaysia's support should not be interpreted as acceptance of any new legal obligations beyond those expressly undertaken by Malaysia under the relevant treaties to which it is a party. Malaysia understands the Advisory Opinion as clarifying existing international law, rather than creating new treaty obligations or a new legislative mandate. Second, references to due diligence, including any description of such standard as stringent, should be understood within the specific context of the advisory opinion. They should not override the nationally determined character of the Paris Agreement or impose a uniform standard without due regard to national circumstances, capabilities, development needs, and available means of implementation. Third, references to the collective temperature goal, renewable energy, energy efficiency, transitioning away from fossil fuels, Net Zero by 2050 and fossil fuel subsidies are understood as policy-oriented calls to be implemented in accordance with the Paris Agreement and different national pathways and approaches. For developing countries, implementation remains closely linked to adequate, predictable, and accessible means of implementation, including finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Fourth, Malaysia places on record its position on the reference to non riformo. Malaysia's support for the resolution should not be construed as acceptance of any interpretation that alters or expands Malaysia's sovereign position on the status and scope of that principle under international law. Fifth, Malaysia understands the references to state responsibility and reparation as reflecting the Court's findings and the general conditions under international law., including the requirement of a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus. Malaysia's support should not be interpreted as acceptance of automatic state responsibility, automatic liability, or any compensation or reparation mechanism in relation to climate change. Finally, any follow-up process should remain state-driven, transparent, inclusive, and consistent with existing mandates. It should not duplicate or undermine the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, or prejudiced the legal positions of states. Malaysia remains fully committed to international cooperation in addressing climate change. Our support for this resolution is based on the understanding that it will contribute to enhance multilateral cooperation while respecting the centrality of the climate treaties, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and the different national circumstances of states. I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the representative of Malaysia. We have heard the last speaker in explanations of vote after the vote for this meeting. Members are informed that the remaining speakers will be heard at a later date to be announced, along with the consideration of the proposal under Item 127. 7, as announced in the journal. This meeting is adjourned.