General Assembly: 87th plenary meeting, 80th session

Good morning, please take your seats. The 87th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. In the note verbale, the Permanent Mission of Switzerland, in its capacity as Chair of the Group of Western European and Other States for May 2026, communicated that in line with the rotation agreement within the group, Switzerland will will relinquish its seats on the Council at the end of 2026 in favor of Luxembourg for a term of office expiring on December 31st, 2027. The seat relinquished by Switzerland effective January 1st, 2027 for the term of office expiring on December 31st, 2027 will need to be filled at by election today for which Luxembourg is the endorsed candidate. In effect, Switzerland will remain a member of the Council for the term of office expiring December 31st, 2026. The term of office for the elected candidate will begin on January 1st, 2027 and expire on December 31st, 2027. In accordance with paragraph 4 of the Assembly resolution, Resolution 2847 of December 20th, 1971, of the 26th session, and taking into account that the vacancy will occur from among the Western European and other states, the new member should be elected from this region. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind representatives that pursuant to Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, I'm sorry, I should first announce that given the voting procedures in the regulations we have done so far, I should like to inform the Assembly that the candidate that receives a two-thirds majority of members present and voting and the greatest number of votes will be declared elected. In accordance with Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, the election shall be held by secret ballot. I should like to inform members that as of January 1st, 2027, the following 7 states from among the Western European and other states will be represented on the Economic and Social Council: Australia, Canada. So I'm sorry for that. As you can see, we're having some technical problems. So therefore, I repeat, in accordance with Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, the election shall be held by secret ballot. I should like to inform members that as of January 1st, 2027, the following 7 states from among the Western European and other states will be represented on the Economic and Social Council. Australia, Canada, Finland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Norway, Türkiye, and the United States of America. The names of these states should therefore not appear on the ballot paper. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind representatives that pursuant to Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. In addition, ballot papers will only be given to the delegate seated directly behind the country's nameplate. We shall now begin the voting process. Members are requested to remain seated until all ballots have been collected. Ballot papers will now be distributed, and the voting has thus begun. In accordance with Resolution 71/323 of September 8th, 2017, the name of the state that has been communicated to the Secretariat has been printed on the ballot papers. Also, an additional blank line corresponding to the number of the vacant seats to be filled from the Western European and other states has been provided on the ballot paper for inscribing another state, if desirable. I request representatives to use only those ballot papers that have been distributed. Members are requested to put an X in the boxes next to the name of the member state printed on the ballot paper, and/or write another eligible name on the blank line. If the box next to the name of a state is checked, the name of that state does not have to be repeated on the blank line. The total number of checkboxes and/or handwritten names should not exceed the number of vacant seats to be filled as indicated on the ballot paper. If the ballot paper contains a vote for a member state that does not belong to the region concerned or that continues to be a member of the Council next year, the ballot paper will be declared invalid. If a mistake is made in filling out the ballot paper, Representatives should request a new ballot paper from the Secretariat. A blank ballot paper will be considered an abstention. Finally, if a ballot paper contains any notation other than a vote in favor of an eligible member state, those notations will be disregarded. I invite the representatives of the following states to act as tellers and to accompany the conference officers as they collect the ballot papers. Cambodia. El Salvador, Mexico, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Zambia. Thank you. Please proceed to collect the ballot papers. May I request delegations who have not voted to do so now by approaching the podium to cast their votes. Anyone else?

No.

The voting is now closed. No more ballot papers will be accepted. In the interest of time, the Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in the United Nations Journal while the ballots are being counted. The Assembly has thus concluded the stage of its consideration of Sub-item B on agenda item 113. The Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 73, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice, to continue to hear statements in explanation of vote after the vote from the 83rd Plenary Meeting on May 20th, 2026. 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, which should in any case not exceed 10 minutes and be made from their seats. We started these agenda item before we took the decision in the General Committee, and therefore in this time I strongly encourage you to stick with the proposed 5 minutes and not exceed 10 minutes. As the first speaker, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Tuvalu, followed by Israel and the Republic of Korea.

Thank you, Madam President. Tuvalu aligns itself with the expression of votes delivered by Palau on behalf of AOSIS, Solomon Islands on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum, and Fiji on behalf of the Pacific Seeds. We extend our sincere appreciation to Vanuatu and the core group for their exemplary leadership and effective, skillful stewardship in navigating the diverse positions of the membership. Tuvvalu is proud to join the vast majority in supporting the adoption of this landmark resolution of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. We welcome its adoption in its entirety. With 141 member states voting in favor, the General Assembly has spoken with clarity and purpose. This outcome is a powerful reaffirmation of multilateralism and our collective responsibility to confront the defining challenges of our time. The resolution represents an important step forward in clarifying existing international law and advancing justice dimensions of climate change that remain insufficiently addressed elsewhere. For vulnerable countries such as Tuvalu, this outcome carries particular significance. It affirms that the concerns of those on the frontlines of climate crisis are not peripheral to the international legal order, but central to it. In this regard, we particularly welcome the call for States to comply with their respective obligations to protect the climate system, including through the application of a stringent standard of due diligence. We further welcome the recognition that these obligations cannot be fulfilled in isolation but require meaningful international cooperation, including through the mobilization of grants and concessional finance, technology transfer, and capacity building for states that needs it the most. We are also encouraged that the resolution reflects the Court's clarification that breaches of international obligations may give rise to legal consequences, including cessation of wrongful acts, assurance and guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparations, depending on the circumstances. This is a significant contribution to strengthening accountability under international law. Tuvalu is especially encouraged by the affirmation of the continuity of statehood in the context of sea level rise, as well as the recognition that states have no obligation under UNCLOS to update geographic coordinates solely due to the physical impacts of sea level rise. These findings provide a strong legal and political foundation upon which forthcoming political declaration on sea level rise can build. While this resolution marks an important milestone, it is not the end of our work. Rather, the international community now has the opportunity to deliver a more ambitious, effective and equitable response to the climate crisis. We therefore welcome the pathway provided through the Secretary-General's report to further advance the implementation of the obligations reflected in the advisory opinion. Tuvalu calls on all member states to ensure that the principles affirmed in this resolution are translated into meaningful outcomes for those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Madam President, I wish to conclude by recognizing the groundbreaking leadership and foresight of young Pacific law students whose initiative helped spark this global momentum. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Tuvalu. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Thank you, Madam President. Israel deeply shares the concerns of the Pacific Islands— Pacific Island states regarding the severe impact of climate change, particularly rising sea levels. Recognizing the unique vulnerability of these nations, Israel actively supports the region through Mashav, its international development agency. In recent years, we have invested extensive resources to develop shares in innovative water, energy, climate technologies across the Pacific. However, the draft resolution formulated in operative language calling upon states to comply with their respective obligations as identified by the Court goes beyond the proper role of the advisory opinion, which is by definition non-binding. Under the statute of the ICJ, advisory opinions are intended to provide legal guidance rather than to create binding legal obligations. Efforts to operationalize such opinions through implementation mechanisms or call upon states to adopt advisory opinions risk conflating the court's contentious jurisdiction, which is dependent on the consent of states, which is, with its advisory function, which is inherently consultative. We oppose any attempt to imply that binding legal obligations can be generated without the clear and express consent of states. The draft resolution is formulated in a manner that significantly expands states' obligations beyond what is established under the climate conventions. Language referring to an— sorry, language referring to internationally wrongful act entailing the responsibility of state or full reparations, compensations, and the law of states' responsibility may be interpreted as recognizing in principle broad tortious liability, including in theory introducing the possibility of bringing a broad range of new claims against states before international tribunals or domestic courts. Madam President, this amount an attempt to create international law norms without the requisite intergovernmental negotiations. It undermines the principle of state consent as the basis for international obligation and may weaken the legitimacy of the existing climate regime, which was achieved through extensive and complex negotiations. And finally, the draft resolution, including the explicit call for states to comply with their respective obligations and, and identified by the Court may be perceived by states as infringement upon their sovereignty and policy discretion and could deepen polarization between developed and developing countries. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Türkiye, followed by Ethiopia and Norway.

Madam President, Türkiye recognizes the sincere commitment behind this initiative and the genuine concerns that motivated its presentation to the UN General Assembly. We also acknowledge the important contribution of SIDS in bringing the urgent impacts of climate change to the global attention. Climate change represents one of the defining challenges of our time. Its adverse effects are being felt across all regions. While disproportionately affecting certain countries, particularly the SIDS, despite their minimal contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Their concerns deserve continued attention and solidarity of the international community. Türkiye firmly supports strengthened international cooperation to address these challenges. In this regard, we are fully committed to advancing international climate action agenda through dialogue, cooperation, and consensus building. Turkey's forthcoming COP31 presidency under the UNFCCC, to be held between 9 to 20 November 2026 in Antalya, is yet another testimony to this commitment. We approach our COP31 presidency with a clear sense of responsibility towards all parties, including those that are at the frontline of climate change. In line with understanding, the pre-COP31 meeting will be convened in Fiji with a high-level component in Tuvalu, reflecting the importance we attach to the voices and experiences of SIDS and to witness firsthand their vulnerabilities on the ground. Madam President, from the outset of the negotiations, Turkey has engaged constructively, pragmatically, and in good faith with the sincere objective of achieving a balanced and consensus-based outcome. We submitted detailed written proposals along the consultation process and consistently advocated for formulations based on previously agreed language under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. We also insisted on the necessity of upholding the integrity of these agreements. We appreciate efforts undertaken to accommodate some of these views during the process. Yet many substantive concerns expressed not only by Türkiye but also by a broad and geographically diverse group of member states have not been adequately reflected in the final text. We regret that the process itself did not allow sufficient space for meaningful convergence of key legal and political issues. Repeated requests by numerous delegations for additional consultations and more time for reflections were not adequately accommodated. Madam President, while international efforts to address these challenges associated with climate change are appreciated, references to the UNCLOS make it difficult for non-party states to actively engage in the discussions of the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change vis-à-vis the UNCLOS parties and therefore create an inequivalent situation and hinder the efforts made on a global scale to better address the problems related to climate change. Therefore, Türkiye dissociates herself from references made to UNCLOS in the draft resolution titled "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change." Her participation in the negotiations of the said draft resolution cannot cannot be construed as a change in the legal position of Turkey with regard to UNCLOS, to which Turkey is not a party. Turkey, as always, remains ready and willing to continue working with the international community to better protect, cherish, and thrive our oceans, humanity's most valuable heritage, in light of international law and best practice examples. Madam President, several delegations emphasized the need for a shorter and legally cautious text that would preserve the advisory nature of the opinion and avoid entering into areas currently under negotiation. However, these concerns remain unaddressed as well. Furthermore, in our view, the current text does not sufficiently preserve the advisory character of the opinion. Certain elements of the resolution go beyond procedurally acknowledging the advisory nature and may create unintended legal and political implications. Its interpretation may also affect ongoing intergovernmental process under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. We are of the view that climate change can only succeed through inclusive, consensus-based, and party-driven multilateralism. The process that risks deepening divisions among member states or creating parallel approaches outside agreed frameworks ultimately weaken collective climate efforts. The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement are the primary international and intergovernmental frameworks for addressing climate change. Accordingly, we welcome the references to the role of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement in the resolution. The global climate change established under these instruments reflects decades of delicate negotiations and carefully balanced understandings on highly complex issues and compromises among parties with different national circumstances, capacities, and development priorities with the ultimate aim of reaching consensus. We therefore believe that in this process particular caution should have been exercised by— in order to avoid duplicating or prejudging discussions already taking place within the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. And creating parallel normative or institutional tracks outside the agreed global climate architecture. Madam President, Türkiye has examined the resolution thoroughly. We recognize the good intentions underpinning this initiative. Yet, for all-level justified reasons, while remaining fully committed to international climate cooperation, Türkiye has decided to abstain in the vote on this resolution. Our abstention should not in a way be interpreted as a lack of commitment to climate action. To the contrary, Turkey remains firmly committed to strengthening international cooperation under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and to advancing a balanced, inclusive, and development-oriented climate regime. As the incoming COP 31 President, Turkey will continue to engage constructively with all parties and stakeholders in a spirit of dialogue, solidarity, and mutual respect with the objective of preserving the unity, credibility, and the integrity of the multilateral climate process. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ethiopia.

Thank you, Madam President. Ethiopia recognizes the importance of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the obligation of states in respect of climate change. The opinion provides important clarification of the applicable laws and principles of interpretation, including the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement as the principal treaty framework, as well as relevant customary international law, human rights law, due diligence, prevention of harm, cooperation, and the protection of present and future generations. We also note the relevance of key interpretative and operational principles principles, including sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, intergenerational equity, and the precautionary principle. Ethiopia values the Court's contribution in reaffirming that climate change is an urgent and existential threat, and states have obligations to act with haste and diligence in protecting the climate system and the environment. At the same time, we recognize that The opinion raises complex issues that require further consideration. While it strengthens the legal basis for accountability in relation to climate action, including nationally determined contributions, the provision of climate finance, technology transfer, adaptation support, and reparations, it gives insufficient consideration to equity, historical responsibility, poverty eradication, energy access, and development pathways. Ethiopia has contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it faces some of the most severe impacts of climate change. While we acknowledge the value of the advisory opinion as an important contribution to international climate law, we believe that a balanced interpretation and implementation, particularly with regard to equity, sustainable development, and the circumstances of developing countries, as needed. In this spirit, Ethiopia's abstention should be understood as a constructive call for continued discussion and for approaches that advance collective climate action while safeguarding the foundational principles and objectives of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. We are of the view that the opinion may inform efforts to advance climate justice, strengthen implementation, and support developing countries adversely affected by climate change. However, it should not be interpreted in a way that could potentially impose new burdens on countries with negligible historical responsibility or to constrain their legitimate development choices without corresponding finance, technology transfer, and capacity building support. Finally, we would like to reiterate that Ethiopia remains committed to playing our part in addressing climate change nationally and under the UNFCCC and its legal instruments, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Ethiopia has taken ambitious climate action and will continue to pursue a climate-resilient and sustainable development pathway consistent with its national circumstances, development priorities, and the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities under the UNFCCC and its voice agreement. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ethiopia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Suriname.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Suriname aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of CARICOM and AOSIS respectively. And wishes to add the following in its national capacity. As a co-sponsor, we underscore the importance of this resolution as part of the broader multilateral response to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change. With regard to the amendments, we have decided to abstain. As a small island developing state and a highly forested carbon-negative developing country, Suriiname recognizes the importance of international law, multilateral cooperation, and climate justice in addressing the global climate crisis. Suriiname reaffirms the right of developing countries to pursue sustainable development in accordance with their national circumstances, sovereign priorities, and development needs. In this context, Suriiname will continue to respond responsibly develop its oil and gas resources as part of its national development pathway while remaining committed to the objectives and principles of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Suriname further emphasizes that its climate mitigation efforts remain intrinsically linked to the conservation, protection, and sustainable management of its forests, which continue to serve as an important global as a carbon sink consistent with Article 5 of the Paris Agreement and the recognition of the vital role of forests in addressing climate change. In this regard, Suriname underlines the importance of ensuring a just, orderly, and equitable transition, particularly for developing countries whose economies remain dependent on natural resources and which continue to face significant development challenges including poverty eradication, energy access, economic diversification, and climate vulnerability. A just transition must therefore support climate ambition while simultaneously safeguarding sustainable development and social and economic resilience. In closing, Suriname continues to support a balanced and pragmatic approach to climate action, taking into account national circumstances, sustainable development priorities, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Suriname. As the counting of the ballots has been completed for the by-election of members of the Economic and Social Council, I will now suspend— the explanations of vote to hear the results and to proceed to the election of 18 members of the Council. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of Agenda Item 73. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Sub-item b of Agenda Item 113 for the election of members of the Economic and Social Council. The result of the voting is as follows: By-election Western European and Other States, 1 seat. Number of ballot papers: 187. Number of invalid ballots: 0. Number of valid ballots: 187. Abstentions: 10. Number of members present and voting: 177. Required two-thirds majority: 118. Number of votes obtained: Luxembourg 176, Sweden 1. Having obtained the required two-thirds majority, Luxembourg has been elected member of the Council for a term of office beginning on January 1st, 2027, and expiring on December 31st, 2027. I congratulate Luxembourg on having been elected as a member of the Council. The Assembly will now proceed to the election of 18 members of the Council to replace those members whose term of office expires on December 31st, 2026. The 18 outgoing members are: Austria, France, Germany, Haiti, Japan, Kenya, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, and Zambia. Pursuant to Rule 146 of the Rules of Procedure, these countries eligible for immediate reelection. As of January 1st, 2027, the following states will be represented on the Council: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Canada, Chad, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mexico, Mozambique, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The names of these states should therefore not appear on the ballot papers. In accordance with paragraph 4 of Assembly Resolution 2847 of December 20, 1971, adopted at the 26th session, and taking into account the number of states that will remain members of the Council after January 1, 2010, 2027, the 18 members should be elected as follows: 5 from the African States, 3 from the Asia-Pacific States, 1 from the Eastern European States, 4 from the Latin American and Caribbean States, and 5 from the Western European and other States. The ballot papers reflect this pattern. I should like to inform the Assembly that those candidates not exceeding the number of seats to to be filled, receiving the greatest number of votes and a two-thirds majority of those present and voting will be declared elected. If the number of candidates obtaining a two-thirds majority is less than the number of members to be elected, there shall be additional ballots to fill the remaining places, the voting being restricted to the candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot to a number not more than twice places remaining to be filled. Also consistent with past practice, in the case of a tie vote and when it becomes necessary to determine the candidates to be elected or the ones to proceed to the next round of restricted balloting, there will be a special restricted ballot limited to those candidates that have obtained an equal number of votes. May I take it that the Assembly agrees to these procedures? It is so decided. Regarding candidatures, I've been informed of the following: for the 5 vacant seats for the African states, 5 endorsed candidates have been communicated, namely Angola, Eritrea, Guinea, Morocco, and Senegal. For the 3 vacant seats for the Asia-Pacific states, 3 endorsed candidates have been communicated, namely Malaysia, Maldives, and Republic of Korea. For the 1 vacant seat for the Eastern European states, 1 candidate has been communicated, namely North Macedonia. For the 4 vacant seats for the Latin American and Caribbean states, 3 candidates have been communicated, namely the plurinational state of Bolivia, Brazil, and Guatemala. For the 5 vacant seats for the Western European and other states, 5 endorsed candidates have been communicated, namely France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In accordance with Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, We shall now proceed to the election by secret ballot. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind representatives that pursuant to Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. In addition, ballot papers will only be given to the delegate seated directly behind the country's nameplate. We shall now begin the voting process. Members are requested to remain seated until all ballots have been collected. Ballot papers marked A, B, C, D, and E will now be distributed, and the voting has thus begun. In accordance with Resolution 71/323 of September 8th, 2017, the names of the states that have been communicated to the Secretariat at least 48 hours prior to the election today have been printed on the ballot papers for each of the regional groups. Also, additional blank lines corresponding to the number of vacant seats to be filled from each of the regional groups have been provided on the ballot papers for inscribing other names if desirable. I request representatives to use only these ballot papers that have been distributed and to put an X in the boxes next to the names of the member states from the relevant region from whom they wish to vote for, and/or write other eligible names on the blank lines. If the box next to the name printed on the ballot paper is checked, the name of that state does not need to be repeated on the blank line. The total number of checked boxes and/or handwritten names should not exceed the number of vacant seats to be filled as indicated on the ballot paper. A ballot paper will be declared invalid if it contains more names of states from the relevant region than the number of seats allocated to it. Accordingly, for the ballot paper marked A for the African states, the total number of checked boxes or handwritten names should not exceed 5. For ballot papers marked B for Asia Pacific States , the total number of checked boxes or handwritten name should not exceed 3. For ballot papers marked C for Eastern European states, the total number of checkboxes or hand-written names should not exceed one. Ballot papers marked D— for the Latin American and Caribbean States, the total number of checked boxes and/or handwritten names should not exceed 4. And for the ballot papers marked E for the Western European and Other States, the total number of checked boxes and/or handwritten names should not exceed 5. A ballot paper will be declared invalid if none of the names of the States on that ballot for which votes were cast belong to the relevant region. If a ballot paper of a region contains one of the following, the ballot remains valid, but the vote for these states will not be counted: member states that do not belong to the region concerned, or member states that continue to be members of the Council. If a ballot paper contains any notation other than the votes in favour of specific eligible candidates, those notations will be ignored. Disregarded. I invite the representatives of the following states to serve as tellers and to accompany the conference officers as they collect the ballot papers: Cambodia, El Salvador, Mexico, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Zambia. Please proceed to collect the ballot papers. May I request delegations who have not voted to do so now by approaching the podium to cast They have their votes. The voting is now closed. No more ballot papers will be accepted. In the interest of time, the Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in the United Nations Journal while the ballots are being counted. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item B of agenda item 113. The Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 73, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice, to continue to hear statements in explanation of vote after the vote. As a first speaker to continue, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Norway, followed by Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.

Thank you, Madam President. At the outset, Norway would like to thank Vanuatu and the core group for the hard work and efforts in stewarding the negotiations leading to this resolution. We commend Vanuatu for its continued leadership of this process over several years, a process Norway has supported since the referral of this important matter to the ICJ back in 2023. As a country firmly committed to the rule of law and international law and a longstanding, steadfast supporter of the ICJ, Norway voted in favor of this resolution, welcoming the court's advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The advisory opinion contributes to much-needed legal clarity on important issues of international law. The General Assembly has a responsibility to follow up on the Court's findings. As the Court itself states, we, the international community, must allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis. As such, Norway welcomes the adoption of the resolution. However, Norway notes that the resolution does not reflect all the nuances of the advisory opinion, and that on certain points its language goes beyond the opinion itself. We emphasize that the advisory opinion remains the only authoritative statement of the court's findings regarding legal obligations of states. We echo others in that the Secretary-General's envisaged report to advance compliance with obligations in relation to the court's findings mandated by this resolution should not go beyond the scope of the advisory opinion. It should thus neither seek to establish new mechanisms nor engage in any determination of state responsibility. With regards to the social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis to which the court refers, Norway underlines that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement constitute the primary multilateral frameworks for negotiating, developing, and implementing the international climate regime. In line with its longstanding position, Norway reaffirms its commitment to urgent, ambitious, and sustained climate action, recognizing the need for collective efforts to mitigate climate change and enhance adaptation. Norway further stresses that timely and concrete action grounded in science and international cooperation is essential to effectively combat climate change and its adverse impacts. We hope that the ICJ's advisory opinion can contribute to strengthened efforts and collective political action to protect the climate system and the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. This is, to quote the UN Secretary-General, the defining issue of our age. Norway looks forward to engaging constructively with all member states in responding to this challenge. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Norway, and I'm going to give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea.

Mr. President, Excellencies, and distinguished delegates. My delegation wishes to provide an explanation of vote after vote under Agenda Item 73 on the report of the International Court of Justice on the landmark Resolution A/80/L.65 and the proposed amendments thereto adopted on 20 May 2026 on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. Let me first align my delegation with the respective statements made by the distinguished delegations of Vanuatu and by Belize on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, the Solomon Islands, for the Pacific Islands Forum and Fiji on behalf of the Pacific Seeds. May I, at the outset, pay special tribute to my dear colleague Ambassador Orotevi and Tim Vanuatu for the highly commendable and tactful manner with which he and his team so ably stayed the course and steered this daunting process to a resounding success. It is without doubt that Melanesia, the Pacific region, and the world are proud of you, Vanuatu. Thank you to us, wantok. Thank you indeed, my fellow Melanesians, in translation. Let me also recognize the important role played by the respective members of the core group of countries, and also many other delegations including my own, who have supported Vanuatu and the core group in this process. Mr. President, it would be remiss of my delegation not to recognize and commend the important role the youth from Vanuatu and the Pacific region played, and supported by their peers around the world, that sowed the seeds of this initiative that has remarkably sprouted and given life. This indeed augurs well for intergenerational equity and leadership on the climate agenda, which must be further supported. Turning now to the resolution, our delegation voted for the draft resolution as is because, in our view, the text is balanced, legally grounded, and institutionally appropriate. The resolution is faithful to the Court's findings and reasoning, which constitutes an authoritative identification and clarification of international law. The proposed amendments were, however, in our view, counterproductive, unbalanced, and distorted, and accordingly our delegation voted against the proposed amendments. Mr. President, this resolution, which seeks to translate the Court's findings into enhanced multilateral cooperation and accelerated climate action at all levels, consistent with international law, is of great significance in a time of planetary crisis. For Papua New Guinea, we affirm the Court's finding that broader international law beyond the climate treaties applies to the climate crisis. We recognize that there are gaps in the current international climate framework, and we call for meaningful follow-up pathways to address these gaps. As an integral part of Small Island Developing States, we seek to uphold international law in all respects,, including by operationalizing the advisory opinion in line with the principles of climate justice, equity, and fairness. In closing, for us, the overwhelming importance of our peoples' and communities' daily lived realities from the worsening adverse impacts of climate change necessitated my delegation to be a second co-sponsor of a draft resolution following Stavlin. It is in this spirit that we would like to make a clarion call on all Member States to support the follow-up to the resolution for the sake of all of humanity's well-being and that of our ecosystem, now and for future generations. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea, and I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. President. Excellencies, distinguished delegates. Indonesia voted in favor of the resolution entitled "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change." This vote is in recognition of the significance of the advisory opinion of the ICJ and highlights the importance of addressing climate change through strengthened international cooperation and collective action. Along with others, Indonesia has engaged in this process in a constructive and substantive manner, including through written contributions and participation in consultations. Nevertheless, despite extensive engagement, The text has not fully reflected the careful balance needed to better reflect the cooperative, equitable, and implementation-oriented nature of the international climate regime, including on climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Indonesia therefore wishes to place on record several points in explanation of its vote. First, Indonesia emphasizes that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement remain the primary international frameworks for addressing climate change. This resolution should therefore be understood as supporting the legal clarification provided by the AO without creating new obligations, parallel processes, or interpretive tracks outside the established climate regime. Second, climate-related obligations must continue to be guided by equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. This is particularly important with respect to the provision and mobilization of climate finance technology transfer, and capacity-building support from developed to developing countries. For many developing countries, the ambition of climate action is inseparable from the availability, predictability, accessibility, and adequacy of means of implementation. Third, references to human rights including the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, should be read in accordance with relevant international instruments and national legislation. Such references should not be interpreted as creating new human rights obligations beyond those already undertaken by States under applicable international law. Fourth, references to the continuity of statehood in the context of sea level rise should be understood strictly within the scope of the Court's findings. They should not prejudge questions of statehood or other legal consequences beyond the advisory opinion. Fifth, references to non-revolvement and state responsibility must remain subject to general requirements of international law., including the need to establish a clear causal nexus, attribution, and the relevant legal thresholds. Such references should not be read as implying automatic liability or compensation in a manner that bypasses applicable legal standards. Sixth, Indonesia underscores that the Secretary-General's report should remain non-prescriptive. It should not prejudge states' legal positions, expand the scope of the advisory opinion, or duplicate mandates under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Finally, Indonesia emphasizes that energy transition pathways and inclusive climate action, including the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, should be advanced in a manner that reflects national legislation and national circumstances and development priorities. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the outset, I wish to reaffirm Algeria's steadfast commitment to the international climate framework under the United UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as our firm conviction that the principles enshrined in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement must be fully upheld. We also underscore the importance of the consensual nature of the international climate regime. We further reaffirm our unequivocal respect for the International Court of Justice, for the integrity of its advisory functions, and for the advisory opinions it renders. Mr. President, my delegation abstained from voting on Resolution A/80/L65 for the following reasons. First, on the process, my delegation engaged constructively in the consultations process in good faith and with the objective of achieving a balanced outcome that faithfully reflects the diversity of views across the wider membership and in a manner that preserves the consensual nature of the international climate regime. In this regard, we regret that the positions and concerns we consistently expressed during the consultations were not taken into consideration. Second, on the substance, this resolution does not faithfully reflect the advisory opinion rendered by the court and falls short to contribute meaningfully to reinforcing the international climate regime. This resolution selectively highlights certain outcomes of the Conference of Parties with the UNFCCC, while regrettably omitting others of equal, if not greater, importance to developing countries, particularly those relating to climate finance, adaptation, means of implementation, and loss and damage. Even the references retained in the text, including those concerning sources of energy, are presented in a manner that does not faithfully reflect the balance, calibration, and comprehensiveness of negotiated and agreed outcomes adopted by consensus within the existing dedicated frameworks. This resolution further fails to properly reflect the primary historical responsibility of developed countries for greenhouse gas emissions and the guiding principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Finally, Mr. President, we reject any approach that falls short of taking into account the imperative of a just transition and the sovereign rights of countries to determine their own climate action pathways in line with their development trajectory. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Namibia.

Thank you, Mr. President. We thank Vanuatu for its leadership in advancing this historic ICJ process and for its commitment to operationalizing the advisory opinion. Namibia recalls that member states sought the opinion to clarify states' legal obligations on climate change and the consequences of failing to meet them. For developing countries, Those least responsible yet most affected. This clarification is essential. Our vulnerability is rooted in historical and ongoing inequities, and therefore responsibilities cannot be evenly shared. For us, the advisory opinion strengthens the legal basis for demanding enhanced global climate action and reparative justice. However, the evolution of the resolution from the first revision to the final text introduced ambiguity. It suggests that while some obligations were clarified by the Court, others were left open to interpretation. For Namibia, effective implementation of mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage measures must be supported by predictable new additional and adequate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building from developed countries in line with the duty to cooperate. As these essential elements were not clearly reflected Namibia voted in favor of the amendments and abstained from the vote of the entire resolution. However, our vote for abstention should not be interpreted as a position against the ICJ or its advisory opinion, but rather as a reaction to the shortcomings of the resolution before the General Assembly. The resolution also failed to take consideration of Action 9 of the Pact for the Future. Finally, Mr. President, the voting pattern, the number of amendments, and the statements delivered so far demonstrate that the final text does not reflect consensus and cannot be taken as evidence of emerging norms or new legal obligations. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, President. Tackling climate change is an urgent UK and global priority. Without effective international action, we face accelerating threats to our security and prosperity, including rising sea levels, climate change must therefore be an issue of deep concern to us all. The UK reaffirms its strong respect for the role of the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. This is an important opinion, and while we do not agree with all of its conclusions, it has the potential to help galvanize climate action. And it is on this basis that we voted in favor of the resolution. We stand with small island developing states, least developed countries, and other climate vulnerable countries, and remain committed to working with all partners to keep 1.5 within reach through effective and inclusive action under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, guided by the best available science. The UK co-sponsored Vanuatu's resolution requesting an advisory opinion in 2023, hoping that it would refocus efforts to deliver on climate commitments. In this respect, the UK particularly welcomes the court's findings that: 1, the climate change treaties constitute the principal legal instruments regulating the international response to the global problem of climate change; 2, The standard of due diligence when preparing nationally determined contributions is stringent. And 3, international cooperation between states is indispensable in the field of climate. The court also helpfully identified the existing mechanisms under the applicable treaties to facilitate cooperation and recognize the dynamic nature of development status and capacity and capabilities to respond to climate change. With respect to the amendments that were proposed to this resolution, our votes opposing them reflect the fact that this text is a package arrived at following a long negotiating process in order to secure the widest possible support. We therefore opposed all amendments without prejudice to the UK's legal or other positions on the substance of those amendments. I will make 3 related points on our vote supporting the resolution. Firstly, General Assembly resolutions and ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding on states. The UK's support for this resolution is therefore without prejudice to its legal positions, including on collective rights. In particular, the UK was not alone before the court in questioning the application of customary international law to the protection of the climate. We continue to have reservations about this and other matters. Secondly, this resolution is intended to reflect, not develop or interpret, the court's advisory opinion. Where there are inconsistencies between the resolution and the opinion, states should look directly to the opinion to understand the conclusions of the court. The UK reserves its position on any aspects of the resolution which go beyond the court's conclusions. Thirdly, consistent with our support for seeking the opinion, the UK recognizes that any report by the Secretary-General should assist states by advancing delivery of climate commitments, respecting both the advisory nature of the opinion and the primary role of mechanisms and procedures under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, and referring any proposals back to the UNFCCC.

Mr.

President, climate change is an issue of deep concern to us all. The UK is a committed climate leader, delivering on its obligations. We hope that there will now be growing momentum for all states to deliver on the promises that they have made.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I give I give the floor to distinguished representative of Malawi. You have the floor, Madam.

Chair, we are not ready with a statement.

Thank you.

So, sorry for the mistake. I'll give the—

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Swiss President. Switzerland supports the strengthening of the international legal framework on climate change. Therefore, we are one of the co-sponsors of this resolution. We voted in favor. The resolution contributes to clarifying the obligations of states in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Switzerland reiterates just how important it is to uphold our climate protection obligations. The first line of defence against loss and damage lies in mitigation. The Court recognises the importance of limiting the overall rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Court also specifies that states have some room for manoeuvre. They can set their own nationally determined contributions. However, this discretion is limited by the obligation to ensure due diligence. Furthermore, the Court recognizes that these obligations also apply to fossil fuels. We regret that some of the elements that were contained in the previous version of paragraph 3 of the text are no longer present in the final version, in particular the reference to the duty to cooperate. For Switzerland, this duty is a fundamental principle of international law. It is also a key component of multilateral climate action. Generally speaking, Switzerland is of the view that this resolution should not be seen as preempting the legal obligations of states, it should not be seen as issuing a determination of responsibility. Furthermore, we underscore the conclusion of the ICJ according to which— stating that certain states are developing or developed is not set in stone. We believe that we need to evaluate the state in question at a given moment in time. a dynamic concept. Therefore, if a state deems itself to be a developing country for historical reasons, as soon as that state accumulates significant economic power, that state should shoulder the obligations and responsibilities of a developed country. Turning now to human rights, Switzerland would like to recall its commitment to respect, protect, and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights as enshrined in international law. We believe this resolution serves as a confirmation of existing obligations. We see no new collective rights nor any additional obligations on the environment being established by the resolution. Switzerland will continue to engage constructively so as to strengthen international climate governance as well as the effective implementation of international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

We go now to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

We requested to postpone our statements.

Okay, so then I'll give the distinguished—

uh, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Thank you, President. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reiterates its respect for the International Court of Justice and recognizes the legal value of the— of the advisory opinions as important contributions to the progressive development of international law. In spite of this, we recall that these views are not binding and they should be interpreted in harmony with the consensus achieved by states in the existing multilateral frameworks. Venezuela, in addition to reiterating its full support to the statement delivered by Saudi Arabia on behalf of a group of countries in relation to the resolution, we think it is critical to preserve the integrity of the international climate regime, which is founded on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, which remain the main legitimate fora to negotiate global climate action. My delegation stresses that the principles and responsibilities— the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capacities, and the right to development should remain the foundation for any international climate measures. We cannot accept selective interpretations that aim to alter the delicate balance struck after decades of multilateral negotiations. President, we reiterate that developing— developed countries have a historic responsibility on the matter of climate change. Developing countries who have contributed less to global emissions continue to face the most severe impacts of this crisis while they're still fighting against poverty, structural inequalities, and limitations on their development. We are in favor of a just, inclusive transition that bears in mind the different national realities and development levels. This transition must be based on financial support, the exchange of best practices, technology transfer, and investment. Venezuela rejects the use of the climate agenda to justify unilateral coercive measures or economic restrictions that affect states' development. These actions gravely limit the capacity of developing countries to make headway on policies to adapt to climate change and for the energy transition. In addition, we categorically We strongly reject approaches that aim to impose the abandonment of the use of fossil fuels or the indiscriminate use of energy subsidies without considering the economic and social realities of developing countries. The transition towards low carbon emission economies should contribute to closing development gaps and not deepen them. In this regard, developed countries should undertake greater commitments to reduce their emissions and to substantially enhance climate financing for developing countries. We call for an avoidance of institutional fragmentation and duplication within the multilateral system. Any follow-up to this advisory opinion should bolster and not weaken the existing processes we have under the context of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Lastly, Venezuela reiterates its commitments to multilateralism that is inclusive, balanced, and based on dialogue, cooperation, and climate justice. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and I now give the floor To the representative of El Salvador.

Thank you very much, President. El Salvador is grateful to Vanuatu for presenting the draft resolution entitled Report of the International Court of Justice and with regards to states' obligations on the matter of climate change. My delegation recognizes the efforts that have been made by the facilitator to heed the concerns that delegations have expressed and achieve consensus. El Salvador voted in favor of the resolution because we believe it represents an important step towards strengthening international cooperation in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities in the approach to climate change and the implementation of the obligations that the court has identified. In spite of this, my delegation would like to make clear on the matter of OP1 that El Salvador reiterates its reservation about the use of the word "authoritative" when it comes to the function of the ICJ. My delegation has suggested replacing this by an express reference to the advisory function function of the court, and we believe that these opinions are not legally binding in nature, and rather they provide guidance to states in the progressive development of international law. When it comes to OP2, El Salvador believes that there should be a clear focus on capacity building, development, and technology transfer, and financing. As essential means to implement the provisions that the Court has set out. On OP 6, El Salvador observes that while the Court has stated that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not require maritime zones to be modified as a consequence of the sea level rise, this consideration cannot be extended to states that are not parties to that convention. El Salvador's position on this matter is based on our state practice and customary international law. As a result of this, El Salvador, while we reaffirm our vote in favor of Resolution L.65, we would say that the previous considerations are an integral part of our national position, and they must be born in mind in future negotiations on this matter. I thank you.

The President, I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Monaco.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Thank you, President. At the outset, I would like to express my delegation's satisfaction with the adoption of this historic resolution on the 20th of May.— the adoption by this Assembly. We also wish to commend Vanuatu's efforts on this front. Thanks to these efforts, we have a balanced and a bold text. This is a decisive step ever since we seized the International Court of Justice in 2023, consolidating an international multilateral order underpinned by the law, science, justice, and solidarity. They have become the pillars of climate action that's genuinely universal and effective. Mr. President, for 12 years now, scientists have agreed that we are seeing some of the hottest years on record on our planet. 2026 could go down in history, climate history, as one of the most extreme years ever. All over the world, there are alarming indicators. Surface temperatures in our oceans are reaching almost absolute record levels. Arctic sea ice has seen some of its worst winters on record. Heat waves are multiplying, as are forest fires. These phenomena are well known. We are aware of the scope of the consequences of climate change. We've known this for decades. Our collective action, however, is insufficient, although what's at stake is food insecurity, population displacement, conflicts, and social and economic crises. Among the collective action that needs to be implemented is a transition towards renewables. It's absolutely vital if we are to achieve the objectives contained in the UNFCCC. In particular, we are referring to the objective enshrined in the Paris Agreement, that is keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius between now and the year 2100. This is vis-à-vis pre-industrial levels. We are well aware that international cooperation and multilateralism are the best way forward if we are to achieve convincing results. Climate system protection is an ethical and moral imperative. This is well known. However, the court in its advisory opinion has prompted states to face up to their responsibilities by specifying the legal obligations that fall to them. Thus, through its advisory jurisdiction, it is also guiding our collective action for a fairer international order that exhibits greater solidarity. Now, amongst the significant clarification provided by the court, there is the following: under erga omnes obligations to protect the climate system, the court speaks to the prevention of significant harm to the environment using all means at states' disposal, good faith cooperation, and effective cooperation of human rights, including individual rights. The court also recalls that any violations of these obligations is an internationally wrongful act, entailing the responsibility of states. And there are specific legal consequences to that, from the cessation of wrongful action all the way through to full reparation. This opinion, together with that handed down by the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea in 2024, strengthens the consistency of international law in the face of climate change. It reaffirms that Water states threatened by sea level rise, legal stability of their maritime zones must be protected. These are not abstract conclusions. They respond to existential concerns, in particular those of SIDS. Their future depends on our ability to act. In a national capacity, as we recalled at COP13 in Belém last year, the Principality of Monaco is very much committed to achieving this objective. Since 1990, we've cut our greenhouse gas emissions by over 34.5%. This is a A substantive cut, and it is the result of a structured, unswerving national policy focused on three high-emissions sectors: road transport, waste treatment, and building energy consumption. Building on this priority, long promoted by the Princes of Monaco, the government of the Principality of Monaco has published its new nationally determined contribution, which commits us by 2035 to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 67.6 vis-à-vis 1990. And there's an additional objective, a 55% cut by 2030. These commitments are in keeping with IPCC recommendations and put us on the path to carbon neutrality by 2050. Furthermore, in keeping with our new collective objective for climate finance, something we adopted in Baku in 2024, Monaco will be doubling the international financing it channels to climate action in developing countries specifically, and this by 2028. Mr. President, by way of conclusion, rest assured that Monaco stands committed to working with all delegations so as to promote the climate agenda in the interests of present and future generations. I thank you.

Je vous remercie.

I thank the distinguished representative of Monaco.

Now the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thank you, Mr. President. Nigeria reaffirms its support for the International Court of Justice as a principal organ of the United Nations and continues to respect its authorities to pronounce on international disputes, on international disputes, including delivering advisory opinion on questions of international law. We reiterate our support for the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change rendered on 23rd July 2025. Nigeria abstained from the resolution as a reflection of our substantive concern regarding the imbalance contained in certain provisions of the resolution, particularly operative paragraphs 3 and 4, which in our view did not adequately reflect the principles of equity. Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities, and the developmental realities and energy needs of developing countries. The resolution is unfair to Nigeria, Africa, and developing countries. The language on operative paragraph 3 purporting to deal with climate finance is clearly a bad precedent. While the resolution correctly recalls the court's findings that a breach of climate obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act entailing state responsibility, the operative paragraph and the language is completely weak or non-committal on the means of implementation. For Africa, a continent that contributes less than 4% of global emissions yet suffers the most acute civilization challenge, the test fails to provide a robust compliance-driven framework for climate finance. It is for this reason that my delegation co-sponsored an amendment and voted in favor of the amendment on operative paragraph 3. Nigeria also highlights a critical imbalance in the prescriptions of operative paragraph 4 of the resolution. The call to transition away from fossil fuel and fossil fuel subsidies is presented with a level of urgency that is not matched by a corresponding commitment to technology transfer or doubling of the adaptation finance. The phrasing is unfair and inconsistent with the Common Africa position, the Nairobi Declaration. For Nigeria, where energy challenge remains a barrier to right to development, the transition must be just, orderly, and equitable, as the court's finding on the common but differentiated responsibilities suggests. The text of the resolution on this issue leans heavily towards mitigation mandates for all while diluting the historical obligations of developed states to provide the financial architecture required for such a transition. The resolution is clearly unbalanced, and it is therefore not surprising that it has not enjoyed consensus in relation to GA Resolution 77/2 7 seas, which requested the advisory opinion. In conclusion, Nigeria remains committed to an international order based on the rule of law. However, international law must not be used as a tool to entrench historical inequities. We reiterate that any follow-up to this resolution must prioritize the developmental right to energy security and a clear, legally linked mechanism for climate finance that goes beyond voluntary pledges. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iraq. Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. So I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates.

Thank you, Mr. President. The United Arab Emirates extends its congratulations to Vanuatu and the core group on the adoption of this resolution. Which follows an advisory opinion that was many years in the making. I would also like to recognize Ambassador Odotevi and Special Envoy Lian for their diligent work in bringing this resolution to a conclusion. The UAE also affirms its commitment to the rule of law and its recognition of the importance of advisory proceedings of the International Court of Justice in clarifying applicable legal questions. The UAE has voted in favor of the resolution in recognition that climate Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time, with disproportionate consequences for vulnerable countries, including small island developing states and developing nations already facing significant economic and environmental pressures. At COP28 in Dubai, the UAE Consensus was adopted, reaffirming commitments to accelerated climate action while supporting sustainable development, energy security, security and an equitable transition that leaves no one behind. This sustained commitment is also reflected in the UAE's co-hosting with Senegal of the 2026 United Nations Water Conference, underscoring its role as a responsible global partner in advancing a more sustainable future. We continue to emphasize implementation-focused climate action, and our position remains guided by the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and respect for different national circumstances and development pathways. The UAE also maintains its commitment to playing a responsible, reliable, and forward-looking role in global energy markets, including by investing in renewables and low-carbon solutions, to support resilience and long-term energy system transformation. We engaged constructively throughout the negotiations on this resolution and appreciate the efforts undertaken to reach consensus on this text. We believe the final text represents an important effort to continue to advance climate action and implementation of agreements at a time when we see more reason for concern in the climate data. We also wish to clarify our position on several important issues. The UAE underscores that climate action and international cooperation on climate change should remain anchored in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, which are the primary international forums for climate negotiations and cooperation. We further emphasize that this resolution and any related advisory process should not be understood as creating new legal obligations beyond existing international law, nor as determining responsibility or liability among states. The UAE's vote in favor should therefore be understood as support for continued dialogue and cooperation on climate action consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law, and the need to support sustainable and inclusive development for all States without prejudice to the UAE's consistent legal positions. The UAE also reiterates the importance of ensuring that discussions related to climate change remain constructive and consensus-oriented at a time when collective action is urgently needed. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates. I do—

And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Thank you very much, President. Argentina has participated actively in the various rounds of consultations that preceded the vote on this resolution, and we did so in a constructive spirit on the understanding that Vanuatu's initiative reflects reflects the genuine concern of many countries, and this is something that Argentina fully recognizes. In the various areas where this matter was addressed, we understand the critical importance of the advisory function of the ICJ, and this is something that should lead us not to make legal interpretations that should deviate from the ICJ's role. We are concerned to see that some of the rulings of the ICJ are juxtaposed with the resolution that can lead to the risk of misinterpreting the rulings, and this is something that could have a detrimental impact impact on the legal foundation to interpret these issues, which is ultimately based on the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. We should also recall that whenever my delegation had the opportunity to intervene on this issue, we stressed the importance of consensus for the exhaustive consideration of these issues. Ultimately, it wasn't— there wasn't the ability to garner the necessary consensus and balance on this issue. I thank you.

The President, thank you. The next speaker is going to be the distinguished representative of Paraguay.

Thank you very much, President. Paraguay reaffirms its staunch commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. These are the almost universal legal frameworks that address the international cooperation through which states parties assume commitments to address climate change based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities in the light of their different national circumstances and their different economic and social circumstances. In particular, the universality of the Paris Agreement was possible thanks to the mechanism of nationally determined contributions, which allowed each country to determine, in light of the national circumstances, the nature and the scope of their efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Paraguay is well aware of the deleterious effects of climate change. As a country that is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events and also as a landlocked developing country, we are facing specific challenges as a result of our dependency on sectors that are sensitive to the climate and the economic environmental impacts that these phenomena generate on our development. In this context, we have taken due note of the conclusions from the ICJ's opinion. Nonetheless, we believe that this is something that should be addressed in line with the guiding principles of the international climate regime, and this includes common but differentiated responsibilities and the respective capacities of countries, as well as equity, the right to development, respect for national circumstances, and promoting an economic system that can can lead to economic development in all countries, in particular for developing countries. We are committed to climate action. Nevertheless, we abstained as we're not able to support a resolution that in our understanding could have raised legal and institutional questions that still warrant caution. First of all, as As we said during the negotiations, we believe that the text could affect the delicate institutional balance that was struck within the context of the Framework Convention and the Paris Agreement. This has been carefully constructed on the basis of consensus, flexibility, and universality, which are critical elements for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the international climate regime. Secondly, we believe it is necessary to be careful about the balance of a resolution that addresses obligations that states have when it comes to adaptation, financing, technology transfer, and strengthening— and capacity building. Adaptation together with mitigation are one of the founding pillars of the Framework Convention. We should also recall the responsibilities that states— Annex II states have vis-à-vis developing countries, in particular the most vulnerable countries, by providing financing and promoting technology transfer and capacity building. In conclusion, on the amendments that some delegations have put forward, Paraguay regrets that it was not possible to take action separately on all of them, and that is why we intend to vote against the amendment in L.69/rev.1, which corresponds to OP4 of the resolution. I thank you.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Paraguay.

Please, Representative Japan.

Thank you, Mr. President. Japan would like to express its utmost respect to Vanuatu and the core group for their efforts to address the urgent threat of climate change. Japan reiterates its steadfast commitment to implement global climate actions under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The advisory opinion of the ICJ serves to clarify the rules and principles of international law and contributes to the strengthening of the rule of law. Japan attaches the highest importance to the work of the ICJ and has actively participated in proceedings concerning the Court's advisory opinion on climate change. For this reason, Japan voted in favor of this resolution. It should be stressed that the advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding per se, and thus we emphasize the need to further examine state practice in relation to this advisory opinion. Japan notes with concern that the resolution contains numerous elements that are not in the Court's opinion and also does not capture some important aspects. At the same time, this resolution does not accurately quote elements from COP decisions. This could potentially undermine the effectiveness of climate actions which are implemented consensus-based. Mr. President, Japan would like to express its views on the following points in particular. First, on PP8 and OP2 in relation to the CBDR. We must point out that the resolution does not reflect the views of the advisory opinion in its entirety, and it is regrettable. Specifically, the resolution should include the phrase "in the light of different national circumstances" after the phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" to properly reflect paragraphs 150 and 226 of the advisory opinion. In paragraph 150, the Court, in interpreting the principle of CVDR/NRC, expressed its views that since the conclusion of the UNCCC, some of the developing countries contribute significantly to global GHG emissions and possess the capacity to engage in meaningful mitigation and adaptation efforts, as well as other States with significant resources and technical capabilities to contribute to addressing global climate change. This paragraph clarified that the principle of CBDR and RC does not mean static status of States as developed or developing. In paragraph 226, the Court expressed the view that the added phrase in the Paris Agreement does not change the core of the principle but adds nuance by recognizing that the status of states as developed or developing is not static. This nuance should have been reflected in the resolution. Second, on OP4, as Vanuatu mentioned in their introductory presentation, this paragraph draws on the agreed language from first global stocktake. However, we regret that this resolution hastened for its adoption without accurately quoting paragraph 28 of the GST. Some words came suddenly from the Rev. 2 of the draft resolution. Technical alignment with the GST was needed for this paragraph. By way of example, paragraph 28 of the GST decision calls on parties to contribute to the global efforts in a nationally determined manner, including, inter alia, tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements. Although Japan abstained from the package amendment of paragraphs, Japan makes it clear that it will not accept any interpretation that differs from paragraph 28 of the GSD decision. Third, on OP7 regarding the affirmation of the continued use of state forward in the face of sea level rise. Japan is in the view that there is neither sufficient state practice nor opinio juris. We remain ready for further interstate discussions for legal certainty. Fourth, on OP-10, we believe that the Secretary-General's report should be a compilation of inputs from member states. Japan expresses its serious concern that it could potentially break the consensus-based climate negotiations under the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement. And the foundation of the existing climate-related legal frameworks, including nationally determined cooperative framework established through long and difficult negotiation. Lastly, regarding PP3, the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has the potential to be extreme broad in scope and has yet to be clearly defined. The Court said that the right is a precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights but does not recognize the right as human rights established under international law. In conclusion, Japan expresses its steadfast commitment to the rule of law and the implementation of global climate actions under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Madam President, the Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the adoption of the UNGA resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligation of states in respect of climate change. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to align itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. The advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice have shown the profound importance of the of this issue to the international community. I would like to also thank Vanuatu for its leadership on this resolution and throughout the entire process that started in 2023. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is proud to have contributed to the work of the core group on this resolution. Please allow me to make, uh, 3 points about directions, uh, where we believe we should be taking from here. First, rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and sea level rise continue to threaten communities, ecosystems, and livelihoods globally. The impacts are already experienced by almost all states, including both the European part and the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Most of the European part of our Kingdom lies below sea level. For the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom in particular, climate change is not an abstract, but it's a lived experience. It's a lived reality that affects coastal communities, biodiversity, water security, infrastructure, and economic resilience. Despite contributing the least to global emissions, small and developing countries— small islands and developing countries remain disproportionately vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Therefore, the international community must implement its common and individual efforts regarding, for example, mitigation and adaptation in an efficient and balanced manner. Second, the duty to cooperate is central to the international response to climate change and requires continuous good-faith engagement. This is also highlighted by the ICJ in its advisory opinion. The global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all states. This has to be in an effective and appropriate international response, not only for the current generation but also for future generations. Let me repeat here what we stated during the advisory proceedings before the Court: There is no room for free riders on this planet. Finally, we wish to recall the Court's observation that these proceedings are not just about a legal problem. We are talking about an existential challenge of planetary proportions that requires a planetary response. International law has an important role in informing and guiding action, but lasting solutions will require sustained political will, international solidarity, and contributions from all fields of human knowledge. We hope that this resolution will guide us in that regard. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany, followed by Vanuatu and Malawi.

Thank you, Mr. President. Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. Let me add the following in my national capacity. Combating climate change remains the defining challenge of our time. Germany remains firmly committed to forging a cooperative path forward. We extend our profound gratitude to Vanuatu and the core group for their leadership in advancing a meaningful follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice within the United Nations General Assembly, strengthening international law and multilateralism. Mr. President, please allow me to highlight three elements which are particularly relevant for my country. First, for Germany, our climate targets are not aspirational political statements. They are legally binding obligations that guide national policy and action. From our commitment to reducing emissions by 60% reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, to achieving climate neutrality by 2045. These objectives constitute non-negotiable drivers of our climate transformation. Second, we recognize that the impacts of climate change are different to every country, particularly in relation to its geography and capacities to adapt. That is why we welcome the explicit affirmation of the court's findings in the continuity of statehood in face of rising sea levels. Rising sea levels are not only a threat to land and livelihoods, but also to cultural identity and heritage. This is why Germany, together with the Rising Nations Initiative, is supporting Tuvalu through the creation of an online repository to preserve the cultural heritage of the for future generations. Third, we want to underline that the success of the follow-up to this resolution will depend on how seriously we all together take the duty and the opportunity to cooperate. Germany takes this very seriously. This is why we will continue to deepen our climate cooperation. We will remain a reliable partner for the most vulnerable worldwide. We will continue to be an important donor for public climate finance. In 2024 alone, we provided and mobilized more than $13 billion of international climate finance and ensured that 46% of public climate finance supported adaptation. Madam President, climate change has drastic consequences for international peace and security. Germany intends to continue to, together with partners, drive forward concrete, solutions-oriented responses to the security implications of climate change in a variety of fora. With Nauru, we co-chair the UN Group of Friends on Climate and Security, uniting 82 member states. By hosting the first UN edition of the Berlin Climate and Security Conference in New York in April this year, we brought together all relevant and UN partners in many member states in order to take our action further. We are proud to co-chair with Tuvalu the Coalition for Addressing Sea Level Rise and its existential threats. Through our support of the Rising Nations Initiative, we help to find solutions to strengthen resilience specifically in the Pacific. Finally, by tackling the root causes of climate impacts—emissions—through cooperating on implementing NDCs accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, or advancing industrial decarbonization. Madam President, this resolution is a promise, a promise to safeguard our planet for future generations. The determination of the coming generation around the world reminds us that we have an obligation to act and to act now. By embracing the principles of cooperation, innovation, and shared responsibility, we can build a sustainable and resilient future for all. This is a challenge we must meet together. Germany will pursue this approach in all relevant fora in the UN and beyond. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vanuatu.

I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and my country, Vanuatu, that have asked to be associated with this explanation of vote. We are grateful to every delegation that engaged with us in every region through long months of consultation. With this vote, the General Assembly has done what an Assembly should do when the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has spoken. We asked for the Court's guidance in Resolution 77/276. The Court answered unanimously. On 20 May 2026, this Assembly has answered in turn. For our peoples, this is not an abstract legal exercise. Climate change is already taking livelihoods, lives, development gains, and land territory. The Court did not flinch from that reality. It called climate change an existential problem of planetary proportions. And what this resolution affirms is just as plain: this crisis is now unfolding in a legal vacuum. It engages binding obligations under international law and it carries legal consequences. This text does not renegotiate climate treaties, and it does not displace the multilateral process. It reaffirms the UN Triple F.C. and the Paris Agreement as the primary forum for the global response, while recognizing, as the Court made clear, that other branches of international law apply as well, including international human rights law and the law of state responsibility. Our method has been fidelity to the the Court not to cherry-pick convenient phrases but to call upon all States to comply in good faith with their obligations as identified and clarified by the Court, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as a manifestation of equity. In substance, the Court clarified matters: States have stringent duties of prevention and due diligence to to protect the climate system, including by regulating private actors. They bear duties of cooperation, including obligations of finance, technology transfer, and capacity building, generally and within the treaty framework. The 1.5 degrees Celsius limit the court, the court confirmed, is not an aspiration. It is the benchmark against which each party must be measured, and where a state commits an internationally wrongful act, the ordinary consequences follow: cessation, assurances of non-repetition, and duty to make full reparation. This Assembly welcomes the opinion precisely because it provides that authoritative clarity, and because clarity here is the foundation of climate justice. Madam President, this resolution has required effort, and it has carried by an overwhelming cross-regional maturity. More than 140 Member States, with 90 co-sponsors from every region of the world. Amendments were proposed that would have weakened the text's fidelity to the Court's reasoning. This Assembly considered them and set them aside. The resolution that stands keeps faith with the Court's findings. At a time when multilateralism is under strain, that matters for climate action and for the credibility of international rule rule of law itself. But the work does not end with adoption. This resolution charts the path forward: a report of the Secretary-General in 2027 and the Assembly's continued consideration of this matter at its 83rd session. That follow-up will give every Member State an inclusive forum to engage with the Court's guidance, to strengthen coherence across United Nations systems, and to ensure enhanced compliance grounded in the best available science, and in a direct conversation with those already bearing loss and damage. We thank every sponsor and supporter who brought us to this day, and we invite all Member States to join us in shaping the road ahead. We honor, too, the young people and civil society movements who carried this cause to the world's highest court, and who remind us what is at stake for present and future generations. The court has spoken, this Assembly has answered. Let us now keep faith with both. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Vanuatu. As the counting of the ballots has been completed for the election of members of the Economic and Social Council, I will now briefly suspend the explanations of votes to hear the results and to proceed to the election of 18 members of the Council. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of Agenda Item 73. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Sub-item B of Agenda Item 113 for the election of members of the Economic and Social Council. The result of the voting is as follows: Group A African States, 5 seats. Number of ballot papers, 188. Number of invalid ballots, 0. Number of valid ballots, 188. Abstentions, 1. Number of members present and voting, 187. Required two-thirds majority, 125. Number of votes obtained, Senegal, 184. Angola, 1. 183. Guinea, 183. Morocco, 178. Eritrea, 164. Group B, Asia-Pacific States, 3 seats. Number of ballot papers, 188. Number of invalid ballots, 0. Number of valid ballots, 188. Abstentions, 2. Number of members present and voting: 186. Required to third majority: 124. Number of votes obtained: Malaysia, 184. Maldives, 183. Republic of Korea, 178. Group C, Eastern European States, 1 seat. Number of ballot papers: 188. Number of invalid ballots, 0. Number of valid ballots, 188. Abstentions, 14. Number of members present and voting, 174. Required two-thirds majority, 116. Number of votes obtained, North Macedonia, 174. Group D, Latin American and Caribbean States. United States, 4 seats. Number of ballot papers, 188. Number of invalid ballots, 0. Number of valid ballots, 188. Abstentions, 1. Number of members present and voting, 187. Required two-thirds majority, 125. Number of votes obtained, Brazil, 181. Guatemala, 181. Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bolivia, 180. Honduras, 5. Group E, Western European and Other States, 5 seats. Number of ballot papers, 188. Number of invalid ballots, 0. Number of valid ballots, 188. Abstentions, 8. Number of members present and voting: 180. Required two-thirds majority: 120. Number of votes obtained: Ireland, 174. Portugal, 174. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 172. France, 170. Germany, 169. Having obtained the required two-thirds majority of members present and voting and the largest number of votes, the following 17 states have thus been elected members of the Council for a term beginning on January 1st, 2027. In alphabetical order: Angola, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Eritrea, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Ireland, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, North Macedonia, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Senegal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I congratulate those states which have just been elected members of the Council, and I thank the tellers for their assistance in this election. Members are reminded— members are reminded that one vacancy from among the Latin American and Caribbean states remains to be filled for term beginning on January 1st, 2027. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item B of Agenda Item 113. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 73, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice, to continue to hear statements in explanation of vote after the vote. Give some time to change if needed. Please remember the speaking time and encouraging you to remain under 10 minutes. The next speaker, I will give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malawi, followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Belarus.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to Vanuatu and the core group for their tireless leadership and dedication in shepherding this historic resolution to adoption. Malawi voted in favor of this resolution. The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 23 July 2025 constitutes an authoritative contribution to the clarification of states' obligations under international law in respect of climate change, and this resolution appropriately affirms its significance while preserving the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. For Malawi, this is not an abstract legal exercise. It is a matter of national survival and development. Cyclone Freddy alone in 2023 affected over 2.2 million people and caused economic losses exceeding $500 million, a significant share of our national gross domestic product. Recurrent floods and droughts have eroded agricultural output, undermined food security, and placed severe strain on public finances. With agriculture sustaining the livelihoods of nearly 80% of our population, climate variability translates directly into slower growth, rising poverty, and setbacks against the Sustainable Development Goals. It is against this reality that Malawi attaches particular importance to legal clarity on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. Malawi places on record the following interpretive understandings. First, the mitigation measures referenced in operative paragraph 4, including the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal, must be read in conjunction with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and in accordance with each state's national circumstances. For Malawi, climate action cannot be pursued in isolation from the imperatives of poverty eradication and sustainable development. Second, Malawi notes that the requirement of a sufficiently direct and certain cause or nexus between a wrongful to act and climate-related injury, as reflected in operative paragraph 9, poses significant evidentiary challenges. The methodology for establishing such attribution in the climate context remains scientifically and legally unsettled. Malawi expressly reserves its position on the operationalization of this standard pending further development of international jurisprudence, and climate attribution science. Third, the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement remain the primary forums for negotiating global climate action. This resolution is complementary to those processes and does not prejudge Malawi's position therein, including on loss and damage, adaptation, and nationally determined contributions. Fourth, the inclusive participation provisions of operative paragraph 5 are to be implemented consistently with the domestic legal and institutional frameworks of each state and within available national capacities. Madam President, with respect to the voting process, Malawi approached the proposed amendments with caution. In our view, reopening elements of a delicately balanced takes at such a late stage risked introducing uncertainty and weakening the coherence of the outcome. Our position was guided not by opposition to substance but by the need to preserve a hard-earned consensus that reflects months of engagement across regions and perspectives. Similarly, procedural approaches aimed at maintaining the integrity of the associated texts should be understood as efforts to protect the collective investments of member states in this process and to ensure that the Assembly is able to respond in a unified and constructive manner to the Court's advisory opinion. In conclusion, Malawi supports this resolution as an important step towards strengthening international legal clarity on climate change while regarding the development priorities and legitimate concerns of vulnerable countries. I thank you.

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

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Mr. Vice President, I would like to reaffirm our continued respect for the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Environmental challenges including climate change, desertification, biodiversity loss, and sand and dust storms are global crises that require genuine international cooperation based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and international solidarity and cooperation. The Islamic Republic of Iran voted against the resolution due to following serious procedural and substantive concerns. My delegation, together with the like-minded group, engaged constructively and in good faith throughout the entire consultations, including through written proposals and compromise suggestions aimed at achieving a balanced and broadly acceptable outcome. However, limited opportunities for detailed negotiations and the lack of adequate reflection of key concerns prevented the achievement of a genuinely consensus-based text. The resolution selectively interprets elements of the non-binding advisory opinion in a manner that implies new or expanded obligations beyond those agreed multilaterally by consensus. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement remain the appropriate framework for defining climate-related obligations. Attempts to reinterpret voluntary agreed commitments into binding obligations risk undermining international cooperation and the integrity of the climate regime. The resolution selectively refers to certain outcomes while overlooking key elements for developing countries, particularly climate finance, technology transfer, capacity building, adaptation, and the historical responsibility of developed countries. It also fails to address the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures and sanctions on climate action and sustainable development against developing countries. Such an imbalanced approach is inconsistent with the principles of equity and the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, international cooperation, solidarity, and the right to development. The resolution focuses primarily on sources of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation measures while overlooking the role of sinks and carbon absorption mechanisms, as well as the adverse economic and developmental impacts of response measures on countries, those whose economies depend heavily on the production, processing, and the trade of fossil fuels. Operative Paragraph 2 refers to the means required to prevent harm to climate and environmental systems without adequately considering their availability, affordability, and accessibility for developing countries. These risk assigning responsibility that many countries may not realistically have the capacity or resources to implement. The resolution also reflects a selective approach to international environmental law principles by emphasizing the precautionary approach while overlooking equally important principles including the right to development and sovereign rights of states to utilize their natural resources in accordance with international law and national priorities. In addition, the reference to the principle of non-refoulement in operative paragraph 8 is neither appropriate nor legally justified. The scope and application of these principles are defined within the framework of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and should not be expanded beyond its established legal context. The proposed follow-up arrangements under the General Assembly, including the creation of a dedicated agenda item on the advisory opinion, also raise important procedural concerns and risk duplicating ongoing work on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process, thereby undermining the coherence of the climate regime. Furthermore, by referring to the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the resolution appears to characterize greenhouse gas emission as an internationally wrongful act without clearly defining its legal scope or limits. Such an approach is neither legally established nor consistent with current international practice, particularly given the lack of clarity regarding the respective contribution and responsibility of states and private actors. I thank you, Mr. Vice President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I give the I will turn the floor now to the distinguished representative of Belarus.

Mr. Vice President, there is a stark contrast between the overall impression in response to the resolution adopted today and our overall reaction to the GA's decision to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ, as well as to the 2025 Advisory Opinion itself, that on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. While the outcome of the work on the Advisory Opinion prompted wholesale approval and enthusiasm, the draft before us sowed division where consensus had previously reigned. The reason being a break in the integrity of both the Advisory Opinion and the norms of international law enshrined in relevant international agreements. The GA's adoption of decisions aimed at selective reproduction of Court conclusions, the way we see it, not only undermines the integrity and the interdependence of such conclusions, but creates an unacceptable precedent in the work of the General Assembly. When resolutions of the GA are being used to interpret independent decisions taken by another independent body, the Court, we categorically oppose such an approach. In the interest of time, we won't delve into the legal procedural or technical aspects which compelled Belarus to vote against the resolution. Having said that, the Republic of Belarus would like to state that the text of the resolution as it was adopted will not be viewed by the Republic of Belarus as being legally binding, politically or legally, nor will it serve as the basis for further intergovernmental cooperation. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Thank you, President. Climate change is a global issue that requires concerted efforts of the international community. China fully respects ICJ's advisory opinion on climate on climate change and calls for comprehensive fulfillment by all parties of their international obligations on climate change. Despite concerns on the draft resolution, bearing in mind that the overarching goal of addressing climate change, China supports the adoption of the draft resolution. In this context, China wishes to reiterate the following 3 points. First, the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement are the primary legal instruments for the international community to combat climate change and the main channel for global climate governance. Any discussions or actions in the General Assembly on this topic must contribute to UNFCCC process as the main channel. Second, under the Paris Agreement, the global temperature control goal in its entirety is set out as follows. I quote, "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels." End of quote. The fact that the resolution refers only to 1.5 degrees does not affect the legal effect of the relevant provisions in the Paris Agreement. Third, the obligations of developed countries under the Paris Agreement to provide financial, technological, and capacity-building support to developing countries haven't been fully reflected in the resolution. Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is the fundamental principle in addressing climate change. Developed countries, the historically largest emitter in particular, must undertake their historical responsibilities. China urges developed countries to fulfill their obligations in earnest and empower climate actions by developing countries. President Xi Jinping: President, China remains firmly committed to green and low-carbon development, fully honoring its international obligations on climate change and providing support to the best of its ability to fellow developing countries through South-South cooperation on climate change. China will continue to China will join hands with all parties to build a fair and equitable system of global climate governance for win-win results. I kindly request the Secretariat to put on record China's statement. Thank you, President.

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Austria.

Mr. President, Austria fully aligns with the statement delivered by the European Union, and we would like to add the following points in our national capacity. We thank Vanuatu and all core group members for their leadership. The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to humanity and the planet. Its consequences, in particular rising sea levels, droughts, melting glaciers, and extreme weather events, are severely threatening life— lives, livelihoods, particularly for the most vulnerable. Austria supports ambitious climate— ambitious climate action and has committed itself to climate neutrality in line with the 1.5°C target and EU goals. Already today, renewable energy delivers 90% of our electricity production, and we remain committed to the full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement. Climate financing is of central importance, and in— and Austria is doing its part. Our international climate finance has increased tenfold since 2010 and amounted to €405 million in 2024. Equally, we fully support the ICJ and its advisory function. This is why Austria has co-sponsored the resolution in early May and is proud to have done so as the as a first VUQ member and European member state. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria for her statement and I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Republic of Korea wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Vanuatu and the core group for their dedicated facilitation of this process and to all member states for their constructive engagement throughout the negotiations. We actively participated in the consultations, guided by the conviction that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice could offer meaningful legal guidance to the international community in its collective efforts to address climate change. Regarding the proposed amendments, my delegation voted against them, not out of disagreement with their underlying intent, but because we believe the adopted resolution already represents a carefully calibrated outcome achieved through extensive and inclusive consultations. Reopening agreed language at this stage risks unsettling the overall balance of a text that has been negotiated in good faith by all stakeholders. Mr. President, my delegation supports the resolution as a whole and voted in favor of its adoption. We are pleased that it has been adopted by an overwhelming majority, and we anticipate that while the resolution is not intended to create new legally binding obligations, it will help enhance multilateral cooperation and facilitate climate action in accordance with international law, translating the court's guidance into concrete multilateral action. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea for his statement. I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Kuwait. Kuwait. Mr.

President, Your Excellencies, the State of Kuwait would like to explain its vote after the adoption of Resolution A/A. 80/L65, titled the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ Regarding the State Responsibilities in Terms of Climate Change. We voted— we abstained in our vote. This had put us in a position where abstention was the only option for us. Throughout the process, we engaged in good faith and in constructive manner through the different groups of countries to contribute positively towards balanced outcomes that are based on consensus. However, unfortunately, our concerns and our suggestions were not reflected sufficiently in the final document. We would like to inform the members that our abstention should not be understood by any means as an opposition to ICJ or to its institutional functions, including the publication of advisory opinions. We reiterate our full respect and our concrete support for the ICJ as the main principal judicial organ of the UN, one of the main principles also, institutional principles for international law and international relations. We have a historic commitment to ICJ and its functions. This is a commitment that is unwavering. We would like to point to concerns regarding the process through through which this resolution was negotiated and adopted. In this context, we observe unfortunately that the resolution diverted from common practice in terms of resolutions of the General Assembly regarding the advisory opinions of ICJ. As such, the resolution included highly impactful technical language without negotiating line by line the resolution by all the member states. Resolutions that have these significant, important legal and institutional implications require transparent and lengthy negotiations to take into consideration the concerns of all member states. This was not the case in this process, unfortunately. And in conclusion, that a resolution related to a product of the ICJ led to divisions within the membership, whereby it— the adoption of this resolution could have been an important moment to achieve real consensus in this regard. And while we continue our firm support to ICJ and its institutional role, we cannot ignore the concerns procedurally and otherwise that remained unaddressed during the final negotiations of the resolution until its adoption. For these reasons, we abstain from voting on the resolution. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kuwait, and I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Ghana.

Madam President, my delegation thanks the distinguished delegation of Wanatu and the members of the core group for their efforts in facilitating negotiations on this important draft resolution. We also acknowledge the constructive engagement of all delegations throughout the consultation process. Ghana aligns itself with the broad objective of the resolution, namely to reaffirm the urgent need for collective international action to address climate change in accordance with international law equity, and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We further recognize the historic significance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and its contribution to the progressive development and clarification of international law relating to climate change. At the same time, my delegation wishes to place firmly on record its reservations regarding the language contained in operative paragraph 3 particularly the provisions relating to climate finance. While Ghana fully recognizes the importance of enhanced financial support for developing countries in addressing the adverse effects of climate change, we are of the view that certain aspects of the paragraph do not adequately reflect the need for balanced, practical, and consensus-based language that takes into account different national circumstances and the evolving global economic realities. In this regard, Ghana supported the proposed amendment to operative paragraph 3 with a view of aligning the text more closely with the advisory opinion. We regret that the amendment did not pass. Our support for the resolution should therefore not be interpreted as a full endorsement of every element contained therein. Particularly the finance-related language in operative paragraph 3. Rather, it reflects our continued commitment to constructive multilateral engagement, international cooperation, and rule-based approach to addressing the global climate crisis. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ghana. I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.

Thank you, Mr. President. Portugal aligns with the statement delivered by Malta on behalf of the European Union and its member states and would like now to add the following in its national capacity. Portugal would like to thank Vanuatu and the core group members for their work and their constructive engagement that resulted today on the adoption of this resolution on the advisory opinion Advisory Opinion unanimously issued by the International Court of Justice concerning states' obligations in respect of climate change. This advisory opinion responds to a request made by this Assembly and adopted by acclamation, reflecting the collective recognition by the international community of the urgent challenge posed by climate change. The adoption of this resolution reaffirms the consultative authority of the Court and underscores the important role of international law. The Court's opinion provides valuable legal clarification regarding the obligations of States to protect the climate system for present and future generations. Portugal also welcomes the Court's clarification concerning the continuation of statehood and the stability of maritime zones in the face of sea level rise. These are matters of profound importance for many vulnerable states, particularly Small Island Developing States, whose peoples, territories, and livelihoods are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. So this resolution is a step towards strengthening the international legal framework— and reinforces the central role of multilateralism in responding to global challenges. Hence, Portugal co-sponsored the resolution and voted in favor. We commend all whose efforts contributed to this historic process and reaffirm our commitment to advancing ambitious, cooperative, and effective action to address climate action in accordance with international law. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal. I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, President. South Africa's decision to abstain from the vote on the UN General Assembly resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change is a reflection of our principled defense of the established global climate framework rather than a departure from our climate commitments. Having actively participated in the proceedings and submitted comprehensive written and oral statements to the International Court of Justice, South Africa fully welcomes and supports the historic July 2025 Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states in in respect of climate change. Throughout the negotiations on Resolution 80/263, South Africa engaged constructively, proposing amendments aimed at achieving a balanced text. However, we consistently raised concerns that the final resolution was selective, highlighting certain aspects of the advisory opinion while omitting others. Crucially, the text interprets the Court's opinion in a manner inconsistent with the bedrock principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. By failing to properly reflect historical responsibility, the guiding principle of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, responsibilities. The resolution dilutes the obligations of developed economies and it fails to explicitly recognize the unique vulnerability of African countries to the impacts of climate change. While Africa contributes only a fraction of global emissions, it suffers disproportionately from its consequences. South Africa's abstention is therefore an assertion that any multilateral resolution flowing from the ICJ's opinion must faithfully uphold rather than compromise the delicate balance of equity and differentiated responsibility negotiated under the UNFCCC. I thank you, President.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa, and I'm going to give I give the floor to the last speaker of this item, the distinguished representative of South Sudan.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

South Sudan voted in favor of the adoption of the draft resolution on the report of the International Court of Justice regarding climate change because climate change remains an existential challenge that disproportionately affects vulnerable countries, including South Sudan. Despite contributing minimally to global emissions, South Sudan continues to experience severe environmental shocks, including devastating floods, prolonged droughts, displacement of population, destruction of livelihood, and insecurity for food insecurity and growing economic pressures on already limited national resources. These impacts continue to undermine sustainable development efforts and resilience of local communities. South Sudan is equally concerned about activities which continue to threaten ecosystem, public health, water sources and livelihood of populations. In particular, our utmost concern relates to the persistent behavior of the peacekeeping missions characterized by bringing in near-expired ammunition and ordnance, and it is insistent to dispose of them inside our country, which, if allowed, will definitely expose our land and people to unimaginable consequences. Our vote today reflects our strong support for strengthening international cooperation, climate justice, and collective responsibility in addressing climate change in accordance with international law, equity, and principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. South Sudan reiterates the urgent need for enhanced financial, technical, and capacity-building support to developing countries and most affected by the climate change.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of South Sudan. We have heard the last speaker in expression of vote after the vote. But before concluding the consideration of this item, members will recall that of the annual report of the International Court of Justice contained in document A/80/4 was considered at the 24th, 25th, 27th, 40th, and 41st plenary meetings on 30th and 31st October and 14th November 2025. May I take— may I take it that the Assembly takes note of the report of the International Court of Justice? So it's so decided. May I take it that is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of Agenda Item 73? So it's so decided. Before adjourning, members are informed that the consideration of Agenda Item 127 will be scheduled in the afternoon immediately after the consideration of Agenda Item 32, to be followed by others items announced in the journal. The meeting is a journal. Perfect.