South Africa says its decision to abstain from voting on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change was aimed at defending the integrity of the global climate framework.
In an explanatory note issued on Friday, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) said the abstention should not be interpreted as a withdrawal from the country’s climate commitments.
“South Africa’s decision to abstain from the vote on United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65 is a reflection of our principled defence of the established global climate framework, rather than a departure from our climate commitments,” the department said.
DIRCO said South Africa had actively participated in the ICJ proceedings and welcomed the historic July 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change obligations.
“Having actively participated in the proceedings and submitted comprehensive written and oral statements to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa fully welcomes and supports the historic July 2025 Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change,” the statement said.
According to DIRCO, South Africa consistently argued that climate change must be understood as a cross-cutting challenge closely linked to sustainable development and historical emissions.
“Our submissions consistently underscored that climate change is a cross-cutting challenge intrinsically linked to sustainable development, wherein developed nations bear the primary historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions,” the department said.
South Africa said it had engaged constructively during negotiations on Resolution A/80/L.65 and proposed amendments aimed at achieving a more balanced outcome.
However, government expressed concern that the final text selectively interpreted the ICJ advisory opinion and failed to properly reflect core principles underpinning international climate agreements.
“Crucially, the text interprets the Court’s opinion in a manner inconsistent with the bedrock principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement,” DIRCO said.
The department further argued that the resolution weakened the principle of Equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), which recognises that developed countries carry greater historical responsibility for climate change.
“By failing to properly reflect historical responsibility, the guiding principle of Equity, and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), the resolution dilutes the obligations of developed economies,” the statement said.
DIRCO also criticised the resolution for failing to adequately acknowledge the disproportionate impact of climate change on African countries.
“Furthermore, it fails to explicitly recognise the unique vulnerability of African countries to the impacts of climate change, a position clearly established under the UNFCCC,” the department said.
While Africa contributes only a small share of global greenhouse gas emissions, the continent continues to face severe climate-related challenges, including droughts, floods and food insecurity.
“While Africa contributes only a fraction of global emissions, it suffers disproportionately from its consequences,” DIRCO said.
The department maintained that South Africa’s abstention was intended to ensure that future multilateral processes flowing from the ICJ advisory opinion remain aligned with principles negotiated under the UN climate framework.
“South Africa’s abstention is therefore an assertion that any multilateral resolution flowing from the ICJ’s opinion must faithfully uphold, rather than compromise, the delicate balance of equity and differentiated responsibility negotiated under the UNFCCC,” the statement said. – SAnews.gov.za
