Diplomatic Briefing | From Opinion to Action: Operationalizing the ICJ Climate Ruling through a UNGA Resolution

About this Event

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, delivered on 23 July 2025, unequivocally confirms that States have obligations to prevent climate harm and protect human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, by exercising enhanced due diligence in putting in place effective measures with the aim of keeping global average temperature rise below 1.5°C, including by regulating private actors.

This ruling expands upon similar conclusions delivered by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) (Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Advisory Opinion of 3 July 2025).

On 6 February, 2026, the Government of Vanuatu, together with a regionally diverse core group (the Netherlands, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Barbados, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Jamaica, the Philippines, and Burkina Faso), introduced the zero draft of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution to endorse and build upon the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion with regard to climate obligations. Following the conclusion of the negotiations on this draft resolution, the final text of the draft resolution was publicly released by the core group on 1 May 2026 and its adoption is scheduled for 20 May. The resolution is currently open for co-sponsorship through the e-deleGATE portal.

Nineteen UN experts have urged all States to support the UNGA resolution, noting that it should be seen “as something that will benefit them all, through mutual learning and international cooperation on the climate crisis that is spreading across all continents”. The Human Rights Council has already recognized the guidance provided in the ICJ climate advisory opinion in resolution 60/20 on sea-level rise and human rights.

Geneva-based permanent missions and human rights mechanisms have played a pivotal role in informing the advisory opinion through a wealth of resolutions, authoritative statements, and reports. This briefing aims to present the content of the resolution and discuss how Geneva-based actors can contribute to a strong support to the resolution ahead of and after its adoption at the General Assembly later this month.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

H.E. Ralph REGENVANU

Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Vanuatu (Video statement)

Richardo COLMAR

Deputy Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

H.E. Amb. Matthew WILSON

Permanent Representative of Barbados to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

H.E. Amb. João António MIRA GOMES

Permanent Representative of Portugal to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

H.E. Amb. Álvaro Enrique AYALA MELÉNDEZ

Coordinator for human rights, Permanent Mission of Colombia to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Vicente YU

External of-counsel for the Philippines for the ICJ climate change AO national submissions; Senior Legal Adviser, Third World Network; former Deputy Executive Director, South Centre

Jule SCHNAKENBERG

Executive Director, World's Youth for Climate Justice

Joie CHOWDHURY

Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law | Moderator

Highlights

Summary

H.E. Ralph REGENVANU | Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Vanuatu (Video statement)

• Although I speak on behalf of Vanuatu, the issue of climate justice is not only a matter for Vanuatu, the Pacific Islands, SIDS, or developing states alone. Nor is it only a matter of climate change.
• It is also a matter of human rights.
• That is why this discussion in Geneva is as important as the advocacy taking place in New York leading up to the adoption of this resolution.
• The International Court of Justice handed down its Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change in July last year. It was a response to the consensus request of the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion, and the Court provided the international community with the unanimous authority of its findings, giving us something rare and valuable: a common legal reference point at a time when the climate crisis is already undermining the rights, security, and dignity of people across every region.
• For Vanuatu, climate change is not an abstract issue. It affects our homes, our food systems, our water, our health, our culture, our self-determination, and our very future as a people.
• But the same legal truth applies far beyond small island states.
• Climate harm threatens the right to life, the right to health, the right to water and food, the right to adequate housing, the rights of children, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the right of all peoples to determine their own future.
• The Court confirmed this.
• The Court also made it clear that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is not a slogan. It is a precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights.
• That is a message Geneva understands well.
• For many years, Geneva-based missions, experts, treaty bodies, special procedures, civil society organizations, and youth movements have helped establish that climate action and human rights protection cannot be separated.
• The draft General Assembly resolution now before Member States is the next step.
• It is a careful and balanced response to the Court’s guidance. It welcomes the Advisory Opinion and calls on states to comply with their existing obligations as clarified by the Court.
• It recognizes that states must exercise due diligence, cooperate in good faith, and protect the effective enjoyment of human rights in the context of climate change.
• Let me also be clear about what the resolution does not do.
• It does not create new legal obligations. It does not adjudicate disputes. It does not attribute responsibility to any state.
• Nor does it displace the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement, which, as we have been careful to emphasize, remain the primary intergovernmental forums for negotiating the global response to climate change.
• Instead, the resolution does something disciplined and necessary.
• It takes the Court’s guidance seriously, places it within the work of the United Nations, and requests a practical report from the Secretary-General on ways to advance compliance and cooperation, with appropriate safeguards and in coordination with existing mechanisms.
• That is why broad co-sponsorship matters.
• When 132 Member States co-sponsored the resolution requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ, they affirmed that international law could help guide us through the climate crisis.
• The Court has now responded.
• The question is whether the membership will respond with the same seriousness.
• Failure to do so would undermine the authority and legitimacy of the ICJ, this historic and necessary Advisory Opinion, and, for many states that came before the Court for the first time in these proceedings, their trust in international law itself.
• So, for Geneva-based delegations, the answer should be clear.
• The human rights system has helped bring us to this point. It should now help carry this work forward.
• The resolution gives states an opportunity to affirm that climate change is not only a matter of policy choice, but also of legal duty, human dignity, and international cooperation.
• I therefore urge all delegations to engage their capitals and their colleagues in New York, and to join us as co-sponsors before 13 May 2026.
• We continue to seek the broadest possible support and adoption by consensus on 20 May.
• This is a moment to demonstrate that the General Assembly can act with unity, that the Court’s guidance will not simply be filed away, and that the rights of present and future generations will be treated with the seriousness they deserve.

Richardo COLMAR | Deputy Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• This briefing has a simple purpose: to encourage missions to engage capitals and New York colleagues, and to join the draft resolution as co-sponsors.
• As colleagues know, the General Assembly requested the Advisory Opinion through resolution 77/276, adopted by consensus in 2023. The Court delivered its unanimous Opinion on 23 July 2025, providing Member States with an important common legal reference point at a time when climate change is affecting every region and every part of the United Nations system.
• The draft resolution now before the General Assembly is intended as a careful and balanced follow-up to that Opinion. It is not intended to reopen the Court’s findings or renegotiate the climate regime. Rather, it ensures that the General Assembly responds constructively and seriously to the guidance it requested.
• The final draft is open for co-sponsorship on e-deleGATE. The deadline to be listed on the L-document is 13 May, and action is planned for 20 May. We continue to seek the broadest possible support.

H.E. Amb. Matthew WILSON | Permanent Representative of Barbados to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• First, I want to really again give a huge thumbs up to those students and their supporters in the Pacific that have gotten us to where we are today. For all of those that say grassroots politics is dead and that individual voices don’t matter: here is the proof that activism still can change the course of history.
• And this is not hyperbole. This is historic. This advisory opinion- although not legally binding-was handed down by the closest thing to a world court that we have; it speaks about scientific facts; about common but differentiated responsibility; about future generations; about the role of the state in bringing forth responsible business practices. The leveraging power of this decision is incredible- the fact that it was initiated through a consensus based UN resolution emphasizes that when used responsibly and with the global commons and shared responsibility at its core, the UN delivers. Now WE have to deliver.
• This upcoming draft resolution is a barometer of our investment in multilateral processes; our respect for the rule of law handed down through the architecture we created; and a signal that we are willing to invest in the most vulnerable of today and those projected to be the most vulnerable of tomorrow.
• The existential questions we need to ask ourselves and each other are: will your country stand for or against international law? Will science help those most responsible to take greater accountability? Will we take this resolution over the line as a consensus text and send a signal of shared commitment and collective action to all of our young activists and the people of the world that we are serious?
• We shall see in a few days.
• Barbados and other core group members have drafted a resolution that is reflective of the many important aspects of the ICJ opinion and it does so with clarity.  It is a morally sound resolution backed up by scientific and now legal certainty: isn’t this what we are often asked to do?
• But there have been opponents. And let me address some of the concerns raised.
• The resolution is not over reach. It is not adding additional layers. It is not duplicative. It is reflecting the conclusions of the ICJ in good faith and with good intentions. It is actioning a unanimous advisory opinion that said states have legal obligations under international law to prevent environmental harm, uphold human rights, undertake financial obligations and reduce emissions to stay within the 1.5°C target.
• Addressing climate change and actioning this advisory opinion is complicated for some. To those who fear what it may mean for the discussion of reparations for slavery; those who fear implications for the plastic pollution negotiations. It is a concern to those major producers and consumers of fossil fuels; to some oil companies; to the Ministries of Finance in all G7 countries.
• We understand your concerns, but will continue to stand firm in our support of this draft resolution.
• It faithfully reflects the ICJ findings and calls on States to act with the stringent standard of due diligence the Court identified. It affirms our right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It provides a pathway for the General Assembly to continue this work. And To quote my Permanent Mission in New York, “It is a balanced text, achieved through genuine negotiation, and it deserves the broadest possible support.”
• But a resolution without implementation is a wish list to Santa, so we expect follow up, including a report from the SG; and we anticipate coordination with existing climate platforms.
• Would we have wanted a text that is even more concrete on climate justice; fossil fuel use reduction and financial obligations? Of course. But in today’s difficult world of multilateralism, the aim has to be about balance. And we are comfortable the resolution does just this.
• This is a litmus test for our commitment to climate leadership. To your country’s commitment to climate leadership.
• A few years ago, a group of students in Vanuatu held us to account. We deserve to be faced with an even stronger reckoning this month.
• This resolution is an important milestone. But let’s also be clear. Whether it exists or not the ICJ ruling still stands as the hereto most authoritative legal opinion on this matter. And that is a victory to be written on history’s page.

H.E. Amb. João António MIRA GOMES | Permanent Representative of Portugal to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• Let me begin by thanking the Permanent Mission of Vanuatu, the Center for International Environmental Law and World’s Youth for Climate Justice for inviting Portugal to take part in this timely discussion.
• At a moment when the United Nations is reflecting on how to become more coherent, effective and connected across its different pillars and duty stations, initiatives such as today’s are particularly valuable. Bringing to Geneva the work taking place in New York on the follow-up to the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion is precisely the kind of bridge-building that can help ensure that legal developments are translated into meaningful multilateral action.
• Portugal was part of the core group of States led by Vanuatu that worked towards the 2023 consensus resolution requesting the Advisory Opinion, which we also co-sponsored. We proudly participated in the proceedings before the Court, through both a written submission and oral hearings. As was the case for many States, this was Portugal’s first participation in advisory proceedings before the ICJ, a reflection of the exceptional importance of the subject matter for the international community as a whole.
• The Advisory Opinion delivered on 23 July 2025 makes even clearer the obligations of States in respect of climate change. The final draft resolution now before the General Assembly rightly seeks to welcome the Opinion, reflect its core findings and translate them into enhanced multilateral cooperation and accelerated climate action.
• Portugal supports the observance and development of international law. In this regard, the role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations cannot be overstated. With its Advisory Opinions, the Court contributes to the interpretation and development of international law.
• While of non-binding nature, advisory opinions can nonetheless encourage the international community to pursue further ambitious and effective action in several fields. We note that the Court’s opinions rest on rigorous legal assessment, independent of the political dimensions or contexts that may trigger such requests. 
• The Opinion is also particularly significant for countries and communities already facing the consequences of sea-level rise. The final draft resolution reflects the Court’s findings on the legal stability of maritime zones and on the continuity of statehood in the face of sea-level rise, issues of existential importance for many coastal countries and Small Island Developing States. These are matters to which Portugal attaches particular importance and which we will continue to explore in Geneva, including at the event we will host on 27 May on “Life Below Water – SDG 14: Challenges faced by coastal countries and Small Island Developing States.” 
• Portugal remains committed to promoting both individual and collective action to prevent and respond to the threat of climate change, and to showing solidarity with those particularly vulnerable to its impacts. We therefore commend Vanuatu for its leadership, as well as the core group as a whole, for the work carried out on this very important draft resolution.
• We hope that the intense negotiations held over the past months will allow the General Assembly, on 20 May, to adopt a text by consensus, a broad support that sends a strong signal in support of the International Court of Justice, of international law, and of the urgent need to address the effects of climate change.

H.E. Amb. Álvaro Enrique AYALA MELÉNDEZ | Coordinator for human rights, Permanent Mission of Colombia to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• This discussion comes at a critical moment for the international community and for the future of global climate governance.
• For many years, the international climate regime focused primarily on emissions without fully addressing the central structural issue behind those emissions: the continued global dependence on coal, oil, and gas.
• Over the past year, however, we have witnessed important developments that are reshaping the global conversation. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta have all contributed to a clearer understanding that climate change is also a matter of international law, human rights, and international responsibility.
• In this context, the initiative led by Vanuatu at the General Assembly is extremely important.
• The resolution presented by Vanuatu, together with countries from across regions, represents one of the first major efforts to give practical effect to the legal authority of the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion.
• This matters because the ICJ Advisory Opinion clarified that states’ obligations regarding climate change are legal obligations under international law. These include duties of due diligence, international cooperation, prevention of significant harm, and the protection of human rights in the face of climate impacts.
• The Court also made clear that breaches of these obligations may engage international responsibility.
• Moreover, the Opinion recognized that failures to protect the climate system may arise not only from emissions themselves, but also from broader failures to prevent climate harm and to comply with international obligations.
• This is why the resolution introduced by Vanuatu is so significant. It helps ensure that the Advisory Opinion becomes a practical instrument capable of guiding the work of the General Assembly and the wider United Nations system.
• At a time of growing climate impacts and increasing scientific urgency, the resolution sends a clear message: international law matters, multilateralism matters, and climate action must be grounded in both science and legal responsibility.
• In parallel, the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the climate emergency and human rights, requested by Colombia and Chile, reinforces this direction by clarifying states’ obligations regarding prevention, adaptation, access to information, participation, access to justice, and the regulation of both public and private actors in the context of climate change.
• Similarly, during the Santa Marta Conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, participants emphasized that international law provides one of the strongest foundations for accelerating a real, just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, while ensuring complementarity with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.
• The conference was also guided by the need to avoid duplication, contribute to ongoing international discussions, and reinforce existing climate frameworks and negotiation processes in a complementary manner.
• The conference produced several concrete follow-up mechanisms. A second conference, to be co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland in 2027, was announced.
• In addition, a coordination group was established to ensure continued engagement, together with a scientific panel on the global energy transition to support evidence-based policymaking.
• The initiative led by Vanuatu therefore arrives at a decisive moment. It has the potential to strengthen coherence across the UN system, reinforce multilateralism, and place the rule of law at the center of global climate governance.
• Most importantly, it recognizes a fundamental reality: the climate crisis cannot be addressed through political declarations alone. It requires implementation grounded in law, guided by science, supported by international cooperation, and translated into concrete action.
• The leadership demonstrated by Vanuatu in advancing this initiative deserves broad recognition and support from the international community.
• Colombia supports this effort.

Vicente YU | External of-counsel for the Philippines for the ICJ climate change AO national submissions; Senior Legal Adviser, Third World Network; former Deputy Executive Director, South Centre

• I am not speaking for the Philippine government, but had the privilege of being external counsel for the Philippine Office of the Solicitor General and the Philippine legal team in putting together the Philippine submissions to the ICJ, and as independent legal expert working on climate change issues over past 20 years.
• The Philippines has been actively engaged in sponsoring the UNGA resolution that led to the request to the ICJ, actively participated in the ICJ AO proceedings, and is now in the core group in New York. In this context, highlight what the Philippines ambassador to the UN in NY, Ambassador Enrique Manalo, said during a recent meeting of the New York core group for the ICJ AO UNGA resolution:
  • The advisory proceedings were unprecedented in scale, with nearly a hundred States participating. This level of engagement tells us that confidence in international law has not diminished – it has only deepened under pressure.
  • General Assembly resolutions, in this respect, serve a dual role – expressing political will, but also contributing to the identification and progressive development of international law.
  • The resolution before us closely tracks the Advisory Opinion. It affirms that existing international law already provides a framework for addressing climate change – across treaty regimes, across human rights law, and across customary international law. The text also maintains a clear distinction between legal obligations and policy commitments.
• When we received the ICJ AO and studied it, the Philippine legal team was pleased to see that of the nine major legal positions that the Philippines had put forward in its national submissions for the consideration of the ICJ, of which two were of specific relevance to the Philippine national context – i.e. on the writ of environmental protection (writ of kalikasan) as a domestic legal remedy that can serve as a model for a new type of international legal remedy and on the paradigm of restoration as an affirmative duty – seven of these were affirmed by the Court, to wit:
  • Broad scope of applicable international law, not only UNFCCC/PA but also customary law, human rights law, and other treaties
  • Climate change is a human rights issue
  • Intergenerational equity as guiding principle
  • GHG acts/omissions that violate due diligence requirements constitute internationally wrongful acts
  • State responsibility for such internationally wrongful acts: cessation + full reparation
  • UNCLOS obligations apply to GHG emissions
  • Obligations in respect of climate change are erga omnes / erga omnes partes
• Following on from this, and in terms of responding to the question put before me on how the ICJ AO and the draft resolution can contribute to constructive multilateralism, it is important to stress that the importance of the advisory opinion and the draft resolution lies not only in the legal clarification provided by the Court, but also in the political opportunity it creates to rebuild trust, strengthen accountability, and re-anchor climate action in a universal, equitable, and rules-based multilateral order.
• To support this, let me highlight five points:
  • It centers climate change as a matter of international legal obligation. The opinion clarifies that States’ duties to address climate change arise not only from the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, but also from the broader corpus of international law, including customary international law, the duty to prevent significant transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, and principles of international cooperation. This strengthens the legal foundations of climate action. For constructive multilateralism, this is significant because it provides a legal floor for climate diplomacy. It does not replace the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement, but it helps clarify the minimum legal expectations within which political negotiations should take place.
  • It strengthens equity and CBDR-RC as foundational operational principles in the international climate change regime. These principles have long been central to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The Advisory Opinion and the draft UNGA follow-up process create an opportunity to insist that equity and CBDR-RC must shape how legal obligations are interpreted and implemented. All States have climate-related obligations, but those obligations are not identical in content, scale, timing, or means of implementation. Historical responsibility, current capabilities, development needs, poverty eradication, energy access, and national circumstances remain central to any fair assessment of what States are required to do. This would strengthen the case for developed countries to lead in mitigation, provide finance, transfer technology, support adaptation, address loss and damage, and create an enabling international economic environment.
  • It reaffirms multilateralism as the way through which the duty to cooperate can be made operational. This is especially significant at a time when climate governance is increasingly fragmented. Climate policy is being shaped not only in the UNFCCC, but also through trade measures, including unilateral ones, investment rules, green industrial policy, plurilateral clubs, private standards, carbon markets, critical minerals partnerships, and supply-chain conditionalities. At a time when climate governance is increasingly fragmented, the ICJ-UNGA process reaffirms the value of universal multilateralism as the legitimate space for clarifying common obligations, differentiated responsibilities, and cooperative pathways. Climate measures must be designed and implemented in ways that are consistent with international law, including the principles of equity, the right to development, and the obligation to avoid unjustifiable or disguised restrictions on international trade.
  • It advances loss and damage as a key pillar of the international climate change regime. It strengthens the legal and normative basis for understanding climate harm not merely as a humanitarian problem, but as an issue of responsibility, remedy, and reparation under international law. It supports the argument that loss and damage finance should not be treated as voluntary charity or discretionary aid. Rather, it should be understood as part of a broader system of international cooperation, responsibility, and remedy for climate-related loss and damage suffered by developing countries and vulnerable communities that contributed least to the climate crisis.
  • It strengthens the case for the provision of the means of implementation, such as finance and technology transfer, as an operationalization of the duty to cooperate and serve as the gateway for greater climate ambition. The Advisory Opinion and draft UNGA resolution can provide an important platform for reinvigorating the means of implementation agenda. If climate obligations are legal obligations, then support obligations must also be treated seriously. They can be used to reinforce the legal and political centrality of climate finance, technology transfer, capacity-building, and international cooperation.
• To conclude and again echoing the words of the Philippine ambassador to the UN in New York, “It signals recognition that the Advisory Opinion could help anchor the climate challenge firmly within a rules-based international order by clarifying obligations, strengthening accountability, and reinforcing the legal foundations for collective action. As the [United Nations and the] International Court of Justice marks 80, it bears recalling that international law retains its authority where States uphold it – and fulfills its promise where States choose to act – together.”

Jule SCHNAKENBERG | Executive Director, World’s Youth for Climate Justice

• In 2019, youth around the world were calling on governments to champion the idea of taking the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court.
• They did so because they were already experiencing the violent consequences of climate change, and they were frustrated by the lack of real progress delivered by the international climate negotiations.
• Many of you will know, and we’ve heard it again today, that it was the students at the University of the South Pacific who met with Honorable Minister Ralph Regenvanu and helped to [win Vanuatu as a champion state for this initiative]. Since then, Vanuatu has led this process worldwide, always giving time and space to the Pacific youth who brought this case to them.
• Young people around the world soon started to join them.
• They organized workshops for ministry representatives in Nepal. They handed over campaign letters to representatives from the foreign ministries in Mexico. They supported states [in making submissions], hosted watch parties in Bhutan and St. Lucia, kicked off the oral hearings with a massive demonstration outside the Peace Palace in The Hague, and cheered for the result that we saw in July last year.
• Now we are asking governments to continue this process, which we all started and which you all supported in 2023.
• Nearly 400,000 people have signed a petition asking world leaders to stand with this resolution in just the past two weeks.
• This is not abstract or vague. The resolution does not duplicate any other efforts or relieve anyone from doing more in other fora.
• There is a very clear mandate for you all to support the resolution.
• When Joy very kindly asked me to join today, I did so only to remind you of every young person who has placed a lot of hope in this process.
• The state that you are representing here today has young people who reached out to their Permanent Representatives in New York. Some of you in this room might have received emails from us.
• Young people have reached out to us when they heard about the resolution, asking for guidance on [how to convince a state to co-sponsor the UNGA resolution] and offering their support for this process.
• These young people have marched on the streets of your capitals for years. They’ve painted banners and learned to run environmental clubs at their schools. They’ve lobbied politicians to declare climate emergencies. They planted trees themselves. Some have taken national climate cases to court.
• And they all look to the World Court and the UN General Assembly with hope.
• A third of the world’s population is below the age of 19. These are your neighbours’ children, your siblings’ children, the schoolchildren you hear during break time through your office windows.
• These are your own children or children’s children, and they all care about this planet being livable for themselves—a safe place to play, to drink, and to eat in the future.
• For the youth who’ve enabled this case, and I thank the Ambassador for recognizing the youth in this process, and who built a global movement around this case;
• For the youth who were learning that international law is written by the power of the people;
• And for all the youth who are desperately looking for states to take more action;
• For all of them, I call upon you to please co-sponsor this [resolution].
• We stand on the shoulders of brave leaders in government and in civil society who led the work of climate accountability for decades, and those who dreamed that international law is the answer.
• So let us be the shoulders for others in the future and show some climate leadership, as we’ve heard at the UN General Assembly.
• We thank those leaders and those states who have already co-sponsored the resolution and ask others to do the same and join us.
• What’s next?
• Well, we’ve got seven more days to build global support for this resolution.
• So, we will be a respectable and gentle pain for seven more days.
• We are organizing a diplomatic table in [The Hague] tomorrow. We were also surprised by how popular it was, so we had to get a bigger table because so many states had confirmed their participation.
• I’m excited to see what’s going to happen next.

Video

Links and Resources

• Human Rights, Climate Change, and the Role of Geneva | GEN