EU Statement -- UN General Assembly: Resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change
Thank you, Madame/Mr President.
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.
The Candidate Countries Montenegro*, Albania*, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina*, the EFTA country Iceland, as well as Andorra and San Marino align themselves with this statement.
The EU and its Member States would like to thank Vanuatu for its continued leadership in this process for more than three and a half years. We also extend our appreciation to the core group for its committed work. Today’s adoption of the resolution welcoming the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on obligations of States in relation to climate change, is a testament to our collective engagement, responsibility, and shared aim to address the effects of climate change according to the Advisory Opinion.
On the occasion of the adoption of the resolution that requested the Advisory Opinion three years ago, Vanuatu explained that its intention in leading that effort had been that the Court “will not place additional obligations or responsibilities” on States, but rather “provide legal motivation for all nations, including emerging and high emitting developing countries, to build greater ambition into their Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions, and take meaningful action to curb emissions and protect human rights”. The Court did just that. It provided the international community with important clarifications on the scope of the obligations of States in relation to climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, the Court clearly stated that Parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive Nationally Determined Contributions.
In doing so, the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the UN, served yet again its purpose of contributing to the interpretation and development of international law with its Advisory Opinion. We commend it for delivering once more relying on a rigorous legal assessment. The EU and its Member States are united in their staunch support for the Court, and more broadly, for the strict observance and development of international law.
We are further committed to promoting the individual and collective action of States to prevent and respond to the threat of climate change and to show solidarity with those particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This is not just a policy decision. It’s a necessity. Climate change profoundly affects everyone. According to the recent European State of the Climate 2025 report released by Copernicus and the WMO, 2025 was a year of intense climate extremes in Europe. It saw record-breaking marine heatwaves, devastating wildfires, and severe drought, with 95% of Europe experiencing above-average temperatures. The report confirmed that Europe warmed twice as fast as the global average over the past 30 years, making it the fastest-warming continent on Earth. Thus, in line with the conclusions of that report, we are determined to deliver on our climate policy with a particular focus on climate adaptation and mitigation.
In this context, climate finance is not only something we have committed to under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement but also a tangible way of expressing solidarity with those most affected. The EU and its Member States have been collectively the biggest contributors in the world. This includes our pledges to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage and to the wider financial arrangements on adaptation finance, including on Loss and Damage, which are intrinsic parts of the established framework to address loss and damage from climate change. We are committed to this framework and to continuing contributing to it in practice. We further welcome the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) decision under the Paris Agreement and we are committed to doing our part to deliver it, as part of a global effort. We all need to support and accelerate its implementation, including in increasing access to climate finance and mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources.
Madame/Mr President,
Turning to the resolution in particular, without being exhaustive, we would like to make four observations.
First, we stand firmly behind the unequivocal references to the collective temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5o above pre-industrial levels, including by tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency by 2030 as well as by transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to reach net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science. We recall in this respect that the EU and its Member States have committed to the Union’s climate neutrality at the latest by 2050, having set a domestic net emission reduction target of at least 55% by 2030 and of 90% by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
Secondly, we note the references to the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of national circumstances (CBDR-RC), and welcome its authoritative interpretation by the Court. The Court has been clear that the status of developing and developed countries is dynamic and CBDR-RC should be read in this light. Specifically, when interpreting CBDR-RC, the Court distinguishes between developed States, least developed States and ‘States that have progressed considerably in their development since the conclusion of the UNFCCC in 1992 […] and some of which now 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.’ When the Court then analyses the meaning of the phrase ‘in the light of national circumstances’ that is attached to the CBDR-RC, it returns yet again to the non-static nature of the status of developing and developed countries. In light thereof, all references in the resolution to CBDR-RC are to be read in the legally most progressive way, namely ‘in the light of national circumstances’ in accordance with the above analysis of the Court. The status of developing and developed countries and all that this entails are dynamic.
Thirdly, we note the references to the legal effects of sea-level rise next to other legal pronouncements made in the resolution. We reiterate the authoritative value of the Court’s Advisory Opinion on all legal issues arising from climate change, including in relation to sea level rise. The Court made a significant contribution to the clarification of the current state of international law in this area and expressed the view that once a State is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. References to the progressive development of the law in the resolution should be read in line with the Advisory Opinion. As a general remark - also beyond this specific aspect -, practical issues which were not addressed in the Advisory Opinion require further consideration and discussion in the spirit of cooperation embodied by the Advisory Opinion.
Lastly, we would like to refer to the request for a report by the Secretary-General on ways to advance compliance with obligations in relation to the Court’s findings. In line with our overall principled position and the language of the resolution, the envisaged report should not go beyond the scope of the Advisory Opinion. It should neither seek to establish new mechanisms nor engage in any determination of State responsibility. At the same time, given the cross-cutting nature of the subject-matter, the report should ensure a balance between expertise in legal matters and knowledge of the climate change architecture. This is all the more important to prevent the risk of undermining the climate change architecture as established by the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement either through possible duplication or by apparently putting its effectiveness into question by implying the existence of gaps in it. The Court did not question the effectiveness of the existing architecture nor did it identify any gaps within it. As provided in the resolution, the report should instead ensure coordination, coherence and complementarity with the climate change architecture, especially under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The EU and its Member States intend to contribute to this process with continued climate ambition.
Madame/Mr President,
The EU and its Member States are pleased to have constructively engaged in the process that led to the adoption of this Resolution. We will continue to work together with the rest of international community in all relevant fora in order to address the effects of climate change.
Thank you.
-
Montenegro, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.