And yet it moves. Vilified by the Israeli government, mocked by the arrogance of autocracies gaining ground, international law strikes a blow. And it does so on the issue that more than any other underscores the common interest of our entire species: making the Planet remain habitable. The United Nations voted overwhelmingly (141 in favor, 8 against, 28 abstentions) for a resolution reaffirming the obligation of all countries to address the climate crisis.
The question is a very real one and has been raised by those who find themselves with water at their ankles, nowhere to climb, the sea rising pushed by the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, the tailpipes of cars defended by governments curbing the Green Deal, the greenhouse gases of intensive livestock farms supported by public incentives.
In fact, it all stems from the request of a small archipelago in Oceania (Vanuatu) and the opinion of a major legal institution (the International Court of Justice in The Hague). The 350,000 inhabitants of these islands see their homes directly threatened by coastal erosion, water tables polluted by salt rising, increasingly violent cyclones battering the archipelago.
This is not because of a natural disaster, but because of a specific global financial choice: slowing down the energy transition to leave years more of extraordinary profits for fossil fuel corporations. They derive these profits because they do not apply the“polluter pays” principle: they retain the profits and leave the debts to others. In this situation, the Vanuatu government asked, is it legitimate to procrastinate on climate defense goals? Is it legitimate to allow fossil plants to concentrate huge immediate profits in some regions of the world while passing the costs on to others?
And the International Court of Justice in The Hague responded. In July 2025, it ruled that all countries have binding climate mitigation and adaptation obligations, both under climate law in the narrow sense. such as the Paris Agreement. and under more general international law. The Court said that states that violate their climate obligations commit an illegal act and opened the way for reparations for affected countries. A decisive point in the opinion concerns human rights: obstructing or holding back the fight against climate change, according to the U.N. high court, constitutes a transboundary violation of human rights, for which countries could be held accountable in a court of law.
Technically, the opinion is not legally binding. But it does make case law. And this is far from minor: climate lawsuits against polluting governments and companies are already multiplying around the world. At this point Vanuatu and its allies decided not to stop at a legal victory. They took the court’s opinion to the UN General Assembly, calling for a political vote.
Now this vote is here. Marking another step in Trump’s growing isolation. It is instructive to scroll through the list of the very few no votes. Among the countries that voted against humankind’s defense policies, we find – in addition to the United States leading the line-up – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Yemen, Liberia and Belarus. A list that says a lot.
