The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution that underscores countries’ obligation to fight climate change, following on a landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last July.

The resolution put forward by Vanuatu and several other countries “was adopted after intense discussion including multiple proposed amendments with a resounding 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions,” the UN reports. Countries voting against the resolution included Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Yemen. Canada voted in favour.

“The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement,” the UN writes. “Governments are urged to cooperate in good faith and continuously coordinate efforts to tackle climate change globally and ensure that climate policies safeguard the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.”

When the ICJ issued its non-binding opinion last July, it determined that countries “are legally responsible and may be legally required to stop the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees that it won’t happen again, and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances,” the UN statement adds.

When it was originally issued, the unanimous opinion by the 15-judge panel was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Court President Yūji Iwasawa called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” adding that “failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system… may constitute an internationally wrongful act.”

The resolution was subsequently “altered significantly after negotiations among states, with climate change taking a back seat to national security or industrial interests in many countries,” Agence France-Presse reports, with the United States doing its best to derail the process. The final draft was still expected to acknowledge the ICJ ruling “as an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law”, and to echo the court’s call for states to “comply with their respective obligations” to protect the global climate.

That meant a positive vote in the General Assembly would “give a political boost to the Court’s findings by showing that many if not most countries recognize them and are committed to cooperatively implementing them through a transition away from fossil fuels over time,” Charlie Hatt, climate program director at Ecojustice, told The Energy Mix in an email prior to the vote. “While the vote will not alter the substance of the Court’s conclusions whichever way it goes, it provides a chance for parties like Canada to show respect for the ‘rule of law’ on the international stage.”

There was no word beforehand on how Canada planned to respond to the resolution. But “Prime Minister Carney often speaks of climate action as a moral and economic imperative,” Hatt said, and “it is now a legal obligation, too.”

AFP recalls that the original ICJ advisory opinion “exceeded climate advocates’ expectations” and prompted the small Pacific island state of Vanuatu, a steadfast advocate for the opinion, to propose a General Assembly resolution to implement it. The opinion itself is not binding on governments, but it’s available for use and already being cited in court cases around the world.

“For Vanuatu and for many climate-vulnerable states, this is ultimately about survival, but it is also about something wider: whether multilateralism can still respond to reality with unity,” said Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu.

When the world’s top court issued its decision almost a year ago, advocates declared it a “day for the history books”.

“You could hear a pin drop—not just in the Great Hall of Justice, but across thousands of homes, classrooms, and offices around the world tuned in to watch,” wrote former UN climate secretary Christiana Figueres, one of the key architects of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The result was “the most far-reaching legal statement ever made on the responsibility of states to protect the rights of current and future generations to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment,” and “the clearest legal affirmation to date that cooperation among states to address climate change is not optional—it is a binding obligation.”

“I confess I am writing through tears,” Figueres added. “The road ahead remains steep. But today’s advisory opinion gives legal wings to countless efforts already under way—and to many more to come. We now walk forward not just with moral clarity, but with judicial affirmation.”

“The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities,” said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. “It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future.”

Regenvanu called the ruling a “very important course correction in this critically important time. For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity.”

He told reporters in The Hague that “I didn’t expect it to be good. It’s good. And it did go above and beyond.”

In mid-February, The Associated Press reported that the Trump administration was trying to arm-twist the UN into withdrawing the resolution. But this week, “every member state is being asked to back a series of landmark findings on climate justice from the International Court of Justice as part of a new political resolution,” the Guardian writes. “If passed, it will mean governments recognise they have a legal responsibility to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, including tackling fossil fuels.”