Model UN Background Guide

Committee: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Topic: Climate Change Advisory Opinion (Vanuatu Initiative)

Conference Year: 2026

Topic Background

Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to the global community, impacting ecosystems, economies, and the fundamental rights of peoples worldwide. Small island developing states (SIDS), such as Vanuatu, are among the most vulnerable due to rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and loss of habitable land. The urgency of climate action has escalated in recent years, yet significant gaps remain in international legal accountability and enforcement mechanisms.

In 2022, Vanuatu, supported by a coalition of SIDS and climate-vulnerable countries, submitted a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of states under international law regarding climate change. This initiative seeks clarity on the extent to which states must prevent transboundary harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, ensure human rights protections in the context of climate change, and uphold principles such as the “no harm” rule, the precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity.

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected to clarify obligations under existing treaties (e.g., the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement) and customary international law. This is particularly critical as many climate negotiations have stalled or produced non-binding commitments. The advisory opinion could influence future litigation, guide state behavior, and strengthen international legal frameworks addressing climate change.

The issue is on the agenda now because of mounting climate impacts, the increasing number of climate-related disputes before national and regional courts, and the need for authoritative legal guidance to support global climate governance. The ICJ’s opinion, anticipated in 2026, will be a landmark in international environmental law and may set precedents for state responsibility and reparations related to climate change.

Key Actors

States:

• Vanuatu and Coalition of Small Island Developing States (SIDS): Leading the initiative for the advisory opinion, emphasizing the existential threat of climate change and the need for stronger legal obligations on major emitters.
• Major Emitters (United States, China, India, Russia): These states have complex positions, balancing economic development with climate commitments; generally cautious about expansive legal obligations that could increase liability.
• European Union Member States: Strong proponents of ambitious climate action and legal clarity, supporting binding commitments and accountability mechanisms.
• Least Developed Countries (LDCs): Support the initiative, emphasizing climate justice, loss and damage, and the need for international legal recognition of their vulnerabilities.
• Oil and Gas Exporting Countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria): Typically resistant to legal interpretations that could impose stricter obligations or liabilities related to fossil fuel production and use.

International Organizations and Bodies:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Central to international climate governance; its processes and agreements provide context for the ICJ advisory opinion.
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Provides scientific and policy expertise on environmental issues, including climate change.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Its scientific assessments underpin legal arguments about state responsibilities and the causal link between emissions and harm.
• Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Advocates for integrating human rights obligations in climate law.
• International Law Commission (ILC): Has contributed to the development of principles relevant to state responsibility and environmental law.

Bloc Positions

1. Vulnerable States Bloc (SIDS, LDCs, and some African nations)

• Advocate for strong legal obligations on all states, especially major emitters.
• Support recognition of loss and damage as a legal responsibility, not just a political issue.
• Emphasize the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the right to a safe, healthy environment.
• Seek binding interpretations that could underpin reparations or compensation mechanisms.

2. Developed States and EU Bloc

• Generally support enhanced legal clarity and stronger environmental obligations.
• Favor interpretations that reinforce existing treaty commitments (e.g., Paris Agreement).
• Support human rights integration and precautionary approaches but cautious about expansive liability that could affect economic interests.
• Promote multilateralism and the role of international law in climate governance.

3. Major Emitters and Fossil Fuel Exporters Bloc

• Emphasize sovereignty and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).
• Resist any advisory opinion that could impose new, binding legal obligations or liabilities.
• Stress the importance of economic development and energy access.
• Prefer voluntary commitments and political agreements over judicially imposed obligations.

4. Emerging Economies Bloc (e.g., Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia)

• Position themselves between developed and developing states.
• Support climate action but emphasize equity and historical responsibility.
• Advocate for balanced interpretations that do not hinder development prospects.
• Call for cooperative frameworks rather than punitive legal measures.

Past UN Action

• UN General Assembly Resolution 73/292 (2019): Requested the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change, following the Vanuatu initiative.
• Paris Agreement (2015): Although not a UN resolution, this legally binding international treaty under the UNFCCC sets targets for greenhouse gas reductions and establishes frameworks for transparency and finance.
• UNFCCC COP Decisions: Various decisions have addressed loss and damage, adaptation, and climate finance, but none have created binding legal obligations on liability.
• Human Rights Council Resolutions: Several resolutions have linked climate change with human rights obligations, emphasizing state duties to protect vulnerable populations.
• International Law Commission Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities (2001): While not binding, these articles inform the legal framework relevant to climate change responsibilities.

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

1. What are the specific legal obligations of states under international law to prevent and mitigate climate change-related harm, especially transboundary harm?
2. How do principles such as the “no harm” rule, precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity apply to climate change?
3. What is the role of human rights law in shaping state responsibilities related to climate change impacts?
4. To what extent are states liable for loss and damage caused by climate change, and what mechanisms exist or should be developed for reparations or compensation?
5. How should the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) be interpreted in the context of legal obligations?
6. What is the legal status and impact of non-binding international agreements (e.g., Paris Agreement) in shaping state duties under customary international law?
7. How can the ICJ advisory opinion influence the development of international environmental law and future climate litigation?

Further Reading

UN Documents

• Official UN General Assembly resolutions and reports related to climate change, including the request for the ICJ advisory opinion and subsequent debates.
• UNFCCC reports and decisions, particularly those addressing loss and damage, adaptation, and state obligations.
• Human Rights Council reports on climate change and human rights intersections.

Think-Tank Reports

• Analyses from international law-focused organizations such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) that explore legal frameworks and implications of the ICJ advisory opinion.
• Policy briefs from climate justice and environmental advocacy groups assessing state responsibilities and potential legal outcomes.

News Outlets

• Coverage from reputable international media outlets like Reuters, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian focusing on developments in the ICJ case, climate diplomacy, and litigation trends.
• In-depth interviews and opinion pieces featuring legal experts, diplomats, and representatives from vulnerable states.

This background guide aims to equip delegates with a comprehensive understanding of the legal, political, and diplomatic dimensions surrounding the ICJ advisory opinion on climate change, enabling informed and nuanced debate in the committee.