The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by IISD, OHCHR, ICJ, WMO, agencies   20 May 2026   United Nations General Assembly backs historic World Court climate crisis ruling.   A landmark UN General Assembly resolution adopted on Wednesday is “a powerful affirmation” of international law, climate justice and science, according to UN chief Antonio Guterres.   The Secretary-General said it makes clear Member States’ responsibility to protect their own people from what is an “escalating climate crisis”.   The resolution drawn up by Vanuatu - a Pacific island nation on the frontline of the climate crisis, and several other countries - was adopted after intense discussion with 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions. Those voting against were Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Yemen.   When the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s principal judicial body, ruled in July 2025 that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the decision was hailed as a breakthrough. The UN chief described it simply as “a victory for our planet”.   The Court also ruled that if States breach these obligations, they 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.   Although the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not binding, they carry significant legal and moral authority – helping to clarify and develop international law by defining States’ legal obligations.   The General Assembly adoption following up on the ruling, sends a strong message that tackling the climate crisis is a legal duty under international law, and not just a political choice. “The world’s highest court has spoken,” responded Mr. Guterres. “Today, the General Assembly has answered.”   What’s in the resolution?   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.   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.   In a statement released after the General Assembly vote, Mr. Guterres declared that those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price, and that the path to climate justice “runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.”   The UN Secretary-General noted that renewables have proved to be the cheapest and most secure form of energy and that the goal of keeping global temperature rises to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is still within reach.   http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/05/1167561   15 May 2026   Speech by Mr Iwasawa Yuji, President of the International Court of Justice, at the Seventy-Seventh session of the International Law Commission. (Extract)   “The Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change was rendered on 23 July 2025. The level of participation in these proceedings was unprecedented. Ninety-six States and eleven international organizations presented their views during the oral hearings held in December 2025. The Opinion of the Court was adopted unanimously.   The General Assembly put two questions to the Court. The first concerned the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The second question concerned the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.   In its Advisory Opinion, the Court noted that the consequences of climate change were severe and far-reaching, affecting both natural ecosystems and human populations, and posing an urgent and existential threat.   In examining these consequences, the Court relied on the reports of the IPCC as the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change.   With regard to the first question relating to the obligations of States in respect of climate change, the Court determined that the most directly relevant applicable law consists of the Charter of the United Nations, the three climate change treaties (namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Ozone Layer Convention, the Montreal Protocol, the Biodiversity Convention and the Desertification Convention.   The Court further determined that the customary duty of States to prevent significant harm to the environment and the duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment also form part of the most directly relevant applicable law.   The Court likewise stated that the core human rights treaties and human rights recognized under customary international law form part of the most directly relevant applicable law.   Finally, the Court found that the principles of sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, equity, intergenerational equity and the precautionary approach or principle are applicable as guiding principles for the interpretation and application of the most directly relevant legal rules.   The Court rejected the argument that the climate change treaties constitute lex specialis excluding the application of other rules of international law. The Court explained that the climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   It added that these obligations are stringent and notably include an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive nationally determined contributions which, inter alia, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.   Concerning the obligations of States under customary international law, the Court noted that States are under a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and that, to this end, due diligence is the required standard of conduct.   The Court further noted that the duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment has a customary character, and it emphasized the importance of co-operation for the protection of the climate system.   The Court considered that the obligations arising from the climate change treaties and State practice in implementing them inform the general customary obligations, just as the general customary obligations provide guidance for the interpretation of the climate change treaties.   The Court further considered that UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), the relevant environmental treaties, the climate change treaties and the relevant obligations under customary international law inform each other and are each relevant to the implementation of the other.   With respect to sea level rise, the Court considered that the provisions of UNCLOS do not require States parties, in the context of physical changes resulting from climate-change related sea level rise, to update their charts or lists of geographical coordinates that show the baselines and outer limit lines of their maritime zones once they have been duly established in conformity with the Convention. The Court also clarified that once a State is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.   The Court then examined the obligations of States under international human rights law. Taking into account the adverse effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights, the Court considered that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system.   The Court next addressed the second question relating to the legal consequences. It underlined that State responsibility for breaches of obligations under the climate change treaties is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.   The Court noted that breaches of States’ obligations under the first question might give rise to the entire panoply of legal consequences provided for under the law of State responsibility. These include cessation and non-repetition, as well as reparation, including restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction”.   http://www.icj-cij.org/home   UN experts urge states to support United Nations General Assembly resolution operationalising ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate obligations. (OHCHR)   All states must support a UN General Assembly resolution upholding the 2025 Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change obligations, UN experts said today, expressing concern about attempts to block discussion of the proposal.   “The timing of the General Assembly resolution is critical,” the experts said, as the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu leads negotiations on the resolution during the second half of May.   The proposal comes amidst new data indicating that the 1.5°C limit on global temperature rise under the Paris Agreement could be exceeded as early as May 2029, and recent cyclones, hurricanes, forest fires and floods across Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Africa have already caused severe human rights impacts and losses.   “The Advisory Opinion was unanimous in response to a consensus request from the General Assembly,” they recalled. “The Opinion is based on a range of international legally binding sources of international law on how to effectively prevent further climate harm and its devastating impacts on lives, societies and economies.”   “We are gravely concerned about attempts to block the resolution from being considered at the UNGA,” the experts said. “States must comply with their obligations to cooperate in the effective protection of the environment, the climate system and human rights.”   “There is a disturbing pattern of growing obstruction across UN processes against explicit references to fossil fuels and the ICJ Advisory Opinion, including at the Human Rights Council,” they warned.   They noted that States at the UN Climate Conference of November 2025 (COP30) were unable to uphold the legal and scientific standards clarified by the ICJ, or agree on meaningful outcomes on climate mitigation.   “States must not delay “difficult” conversations,” the experts said, calling on countries to step up efforts to find inclusive, meaningful ways to comply with international obligations and effectively protect people from inter-linked planetary crises, growing economic inequality and armed aggression connected with the fossil fuel-based economy.   “We applaud over 80 States from different regions that pointed out the problematic dynamics at COP30 and launched a separate multilateral conference to advance concrete and fair action to transition away from fossil fuels, under the leadership of Colombia and the Netherlands.”   The draft resolution could support a collaborative and inclusive approach to fulfilling States’ obligations to legislate on the fossil fuel phase-out, remove fossil fuel subsidies, document climate harm and respond to reparation claims, the experts said.   These efforts could complement the Paris Agreement’s Loss and Damage Fund, which remains severely underfunded and in need of reform to support affected communities.   “Instead of resorting to adversarial measures, States must see this resolution as something that will benefit them all, through mutual learning and international cooperation on the climate crisis that is spreading across all continents,” they said.   The experts recalled that reparations identified by the ICJ overlap with States’ pre-existing obligations to prevent environmental and human rights harm, conserve and restore ecosystems, and fund effective environmental action in countries most affected by climate change and least responsible for it.   “A UN General Assembly resolution will set the direction for multilateral action towards the effective protection of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including a safe climate, as a precondition for peace and the enjoyment of all human rights by present and future generations,” they said.   United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk hails landmark ICJ ruling affirming States’ human rights obligations with respect to climate change.   The Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations regarding climate change is a sweeping victory for all those who are fighting to protect a safe climate and planet for all humanity, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk said.   “This Opinion by the world’s highest court is an authoritative, clear and indisputable affirmation of the far-ranging impacts of climate change and the broad extent of obligations of States, under human rights law and beyond, to act urgently to stem the damage,” the High Commissioner said. “It is also a testament to the power of the inspiring Pacific Islands students’ movement, and many other activists, whose initiative led Vanuatu and other Pacific Island States to start the process at the UN General Assembly to request this Opinion.”   The Opinion, which was issued on Wednesday, makes clear that human rights law and obligations apply in the context of climate change, and must be taken into full account by States. This includes the human right to life, as well as to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is foundational for the effective enjoyment of all human rights, according to the Court.   According to the decision, States have a duty “to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”.   The “failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions - including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies - may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State”, the ICJ added. The legal consequences may require States to cease harmful activities, provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, including through effective regulation of the private sector, and provide reparations for climate harms, the court said.   “The emphasis by the Court on international human rights law sends a powerful message,” Türk said. In its analysis, the Court referenced the work of the UN Human Rights Office and other human rights mechanisms, at international and regional levels.   “Importantly, this landmark legal position affirms the central role of human rights law in addressing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. It acknowledges the existential character of that crisis and finds that climate harms - despite all their complexities - are actionable under familiar principles of international law. The Court has provided a roadmap for people and Governments to seek the transformative change and accountability we need in the fight against climate change, now and in the future.   “States now urgently need to take meaningful action through legislation, policy change, resource mobilisation and international cooperation, to stop the climate crisis from worsening and open paths towards due reparations for those affected,” the High Commissioner added.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-urge-states-support-general-assembly-resolution-operationalising http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/02/global-governments-must-use-new-un-general-assembly-resolution-to-turn-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-into-robust-action http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/16/governments-should-support-vanuatus-un-climate-resolution http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/climate-action-and-accountability-for-survival http://theelders.org/news/climate-and-rule-law-why-states-must-step-now http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/un-resolution-advancing-icj-climate-ruling-by-ralph-regenvanu-2026-05/   http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/ http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/   May 2026   Final text of UN climate resolution released ahead of 20 May vote - Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change   The final text of the United Nations General Assembly resolution responding to the International Court of Justice's 2025 climate Advisory Opinion has been released, marking a pivotal step in the global effort to translate legal consensus into coordinated political action. The resolution is expected to come to a vote on 20 May 2026.   The resolution's objectives are clear. It seeks to give effect to the ICJ's Advisory Opinion by establishing coordinated global follow-up, reaffirming that international law — including human rights law, the law of the sea, and customary international law — applies to State conduct on climate change.   It calls for implementation pathways consistent with the Court's findings, supports continued attention to the rights of present and future generations, and anchors climate cooperation in the legal obligations States already owe one another and to the planet. We call on all states to co-sponsor the resolution and vote yes on 20 May.   http://www.pisfcc.org/news/final-text-of-un-climate-resolution-released-ahead-of-20-may-vote http://www.pisfcc.org/s/Final-UNGA-Resolution-ICJ-AO-CC-30426.pdf http://www.unep.org/championsofearth/index.php/laureates/2025/pacific-island-students-fighting-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/04/a-un-climate-change-resolution-that-may-shift-climate-accountability-for-decades/   * ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf   * ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases   24 Apr. 2026   The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels aims to advance collective efforts to phase out fossil fuels. The conference will identify legal, economic, and social pathways to phase out fossil fuels.   The Governments of Colombia and the Netherlands announced their intent to co-host the conference after the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 30) negotiations did not result in an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels. In response, the governments proposed continuing the momentum for an equitable roadmap for the global phaseout of fossil fuels.   The conference will advance international cooperation on transitioning away from fossil fuel extraction in line with the ‘Belem Declaration on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels’.   The conference takes place from 28-29 April, bringing together countries, subnational actors, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders. Over 60 countries are taking part in the Conference.   The event will serve as “the first implementation-focused global Conference, intended to support practical action by those already prepared to move forward.”   The event will not conclude with a negotiated outcome, but will “generate shared understanding and actionable guidance that can help accelerate a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.”   Apr. 2026   A new economic power could spark a global retreat from fossil fuels, by Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope for Covering Climate Now.   The Iran war is also a climate war. Beyond its terrible human costs, the war’s disruptions of oil, gas, fertilizer and other shipments is another reminder of the risks inherent in basing the world economy on fossil fuels.   The climate system with ever expanding greenhouse gas emissions is already “very close” to a point of no return, scientists say, after which runaway global warming could not be stopped. Nevertheless, those committed to fossil fuels around the world continue doing their utmost to stave off a desperately needed course correction.   Now, a little noticed ray of hope may be peeking over the horizon.   At the UN Cop30 climate summit last November, Saudi Arabia led a group of petrostates in vetoing calls to develop a “roadmap” to phase out fossil fuels globally; indeed, the words “fossil fuels” were not even mentioned in the final text agreed at Cop30. But the 85 countries on the losing end of that veto may soon turn the tables.   Many of those governments will gather in Colombia on 28-29 April for a conference to begin a global transition away from oil, gas and coal. Critically, the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels will not be governed by UN rules, which require consensus, but by majority rule, thus preventing a handful of countries from sabotaging progress as petrostates did at Cop30.   What’s more, the underlying terrain of this conference will no longer be principally politics, but economics, the market forces that shape the world economy.   The conference is co-sponsored by Colombia and the Netherlands, with organizers confirming that they have invited countries that endorsed the roadmap proposal at Cop30, as well as leaders of sub-national governments.   The conference aims to begin drawing up the roadmap blocked at Cop30. Energy and environment ministers of governments comprising a “coalition of the willing” will share plans to transition their economies away from oil, gas and coal without leaving workers and communities behind. Joining them will be climate activists, leaders of Indigenous peoples, trade union representatives and other civil society voices, sharing ideas and experiences on how to make the abstract goal of phasing out fossil fuels a practical reality.   The goal of the conference is to agree on “actionable solutions” that follow-up meetings can refine so governments around the world can implement them.   One area of focus will be how to phase out the $7tn a year governments spend subsidizing fossil fuels – but to do so without punishing communities, workers and tax bases that rely on such subsidies.   At least 85 countries at Cop30 backed developing a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. Included among them were the global north states Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Spain – the world’s third, sixth, seventh and 12th biggest economies. Brazil and Mexico, the world’s 10th and 13th biggest economies, also backed the measure.   Combine the gross national products of those 85 countries and the total is $33.3tn. That’s larger than the $30.6tn GNP of the US, the world’s biggest economy, and considerably larger than the $19.4tn GNP of China, the world’s second-biggest economy.   This gives those 85 countries enormous potential leverage. If those attending the Just Transition conference can outline a credible roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels for the wider group to unite behind, it could send a clear signal to financial markets and government ministries around the world.   “A coalition of that scale signaling its intent to move beyond fossil fuels would send an unmistakable message that the age of oil, gas, and coal is ending, and the smart money is shifting,” Mohamed Adow, director of the non-profit Power Shift Africa, said in an interview.   Money follows money. If a large chunk of the global economy announces that it intends to leave fossil fuels behind – and releases transparent, convincing plans for doing so – private investors and government planners everywhere would have to question whether sinking new money into oil exploration, coal mining, or gas terminals makes financial sense or would instead leave them with virtually worthless stranded assets.   Much the same thing happened after the 2015 Paris agreement. When governments pledged to limit temperature rise to “well below” 2C and to aim for 1.5C, public and private sector leaders began changing course. Fossil fuel expansions were scaled back, renewable energy investments boosted.   Before the Paris agreement, the planet was on track toward a hellish 4C of temperature rise. Five years later, the emissions curve had bent to a 2.7C future – still much too high, but a step in the right direction, and proof that change is possible.   The Just Transition conference underscores a point often missed in the usual narrative on climate change: the overwhelming majority of the world’s people – 80-89% of them – want their governments to take stronger climate action. Scientists have long been clear that phasing out fossil fuels is imperative to limit global warming to an amount our civilization can survive.   * Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope are co-founders of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now   http://transitionawayconference.com/ http://transitionawayconference.com/press-releases http://transitionawayconference.com/contributions http://enb.iisd.org/transition-away-fossil-fuels-1-summary http://genevasolutions.news/climate-environment/a-breath-of-fresh-air-first-conference-to-quit-fossil-fuels-ends-in-optimism http://coveringclimatenow.org/from-us-story/santa-marta-may-be-a-game-changing-moment/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?15886841/WWF-Santa-Marta-marks-a-pivotal-milestone-in-implementing-the-fossil-fuel-transition http://climatenetwork.org/2026/04/30/santa-marta-plants-the-seeds-of-a-fossil-free-future-civil-society-will-hold-governments-to-account http://fossilfreerising.org/declaration http://www.ciel.org/news/santa-marta-fossil-fuel-phaseout/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/04/santa-marta-conference http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/04/fossil-fuel-treaty/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/0863/2026/en/ http://www.carbonbrief.org/santa-marta-key-outcomes-from-first-summit-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/climate-action-from-geneva-to-santa-marta-first-conference-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.fossilfueltreaty.org/briefing-pack http://www.fossilfueltreaty.org/latest#newsroom   http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/30/colombia-climate-talks-end-fossil-fuel-phaseout http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/07/iran-war-oil-phase-out-fossil-fuels http://theconversation.com/countries-must-back-commitments-to-transition-from-fossil-fuels-with-action-282118 http://tinyurl.com/5art45d3 http://www.iisd.org/events/inside-first-conference-transitioning-away-fossil-fuels http://www.iisd.org/articles/press-release/governments-five-times-more-public-money-fossil-fuels-than-renewables http://iwgia.org/en/news/6136-a-just-future-beyond-fossil-fuels-indigenous-peoples-rights.html http://350.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Out-Report-Pocket-Full-Report.pdf http://unfccc.int/news/un-climate-chief-in-brussels-fossil-fuel-dependency-is-ripping-away-national-security-and http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167135 http://wmo.int/news/media-centre/earths-climate-swings-increasingly-out-of-balance http://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/3060/wmo-presser-state-of-the-global-climate-2025-report/9190 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/significant-acceleration-of-global-warming-since-2015 http://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/fossil-fuels-and-energy-security-what-s-the-issue/   http://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260508-eu-monitor-says-sea-temperatures-near-all-time-highs-as-el-nino-looms http://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/cvgzn11v421o http://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-surface-temperatures-approach-record-levels-march http://www.who.int/europe/news/item/17-05-2026-climate-change-is-a-health-crisis---and-fixing-it-is-a-health-opportunity http://www.who.int/europe/publications/m/item/pan-european-commission-on-climate-and-health--call-to-action Visit the related web page
	Conflict and violence become the leading driver of internal displacements by Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC)   May 2026   States must act to protect Civilians in Armed Conflict   Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflict is a Responsibility that Member States and the UN Security Council Must Uphold. Statement by Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC):   "As the Protection of Civilians Week unfolds in New York, we strongly condemn and raise the alarm about the growing and blatant violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law meant to protect civilians in armed conflict.   Across conflicts, civilians, including children, are killed, injured, and displaced at an alarming scale. Sexual violence is used as a tactic of war, overwhelmingly affecting women and girls and devastating lives. Homes, schools, places of worship, hospitals, including maternal wards, are destroyed or damaged, as are civilian infrastructure and assets, such as water systems, transport network, markets, food production. Essential services are collapsing. Forced displacement is accelerating.   Conflict-induced hunger and famine are spreading, often driven by unlawful siege tactics, starvation, and the arbitrary denial of humanitarian access. This is happening despite the existence of clear obligations under International Humanitarian Law and the framework reaffirmed by UN Security Council resolution 2417 (2018), which condemns the deliberate starvation of civilians and the use of hunger as method of warfare.   And a decade after the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2286 (2016) that demands the protection of the wounded, sick, and medical personnel, violence, attacks and threats against healthcare workers and facilities continue with impunity. More than 10,000 incidents against health care facilities and workers have been verified to date.   Aid workers are also under attack and killed in unprecedented numbers. More than 1,000 humanitarian colleagues have been killed over the past three years. Many others are arbitrarily detained. Often the first to respond, staff from national and local organisations and community initiatives pay an unacceptably high toll. Many women-led-organisations addressing lifesaving protection and gender-based violence are being attacked.   From Gaza to El Fasher, and from Kharkiv to Beirut, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is devastating civilian lives. At the same time, new technologies, including drones and artificial intelligence, are reshaping warfare and expanding the battlefield.   Wars have rules that apply to all parties to conflict. The problem is not a lack of law. The problem is the failure to uphold them consistently, the erosion of accountability and inaction, even in the face of atrocities.   Protecting civilians is a legal obligation and a moral imperative. For the sake of our shared humanity, rules that protect civilians must be upheld.   http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/inter-agency-standing-committee/statement-principals-iasc-protecting-civilians-armed-conflict-responsibility-member-states-and-un http://www.unocha.org/news/un-heads-condemn-failure-protect-civilians-growing-threats-their-security   20 May 2026   Briefing to the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict - by Edem Wosornu, Director, Crisis Response Division for OCHA, on behalf of Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator:   "One civilian was killed approximately every 14 minutes in 2025. These are only the deaths that the United Nations could document across 20 armed conflicts. We know the real toll is far higher in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond.   I saw some of this devastation myself over the past year during my visits to countries affected by war.   Civilians, including children, are killed in their homes, in markets, at work, at school, on roads, and while fleeing for safety. All too often, they are not collateral damage. They are the target.   Explosive weapons continue to tear through towns and cities, destroying not only lives but the systems that sustain them such as power grids, water networks, schools, and hospitals.   Health care is under attack. Ten years after this Council adopted Resolution 2286 on the protection of health care in armed conflict, the situation has only gotten worse.   In 2025, the United Nations recorded more than 1,350 attacks on medical care across 18 conflicts. Hospitals and ambulances were hit. Medical personnel were killed, detained, intimidated, or criminalized simply for doing their jobs.   Conflict‑driven hunger has deepened. 147 million people faced acute food insecurity in 2025, driven largely by armed conflict. Two famines were confirmed – not because food was unavailable, but because of the way parties conducted hostilities, used siege tactics, and denied humanitarian access. Food has become a weapon of war.   Sexual violence remains widespread. The United Nations reported over 9,300 cases last year – the overwhelming majority women and girls – many of whom will struggle to get the basic assistance they need. We know that number unfortunately is much higher.   Children are abducted and recruited to fight. Too many are injured and killed – a direct result of the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas. Information and Communication Technology, including social media, is used to abduct, to extort, and recruit children.   Journalists are targeted. According to UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), 186 journalists were killed while covering wars and conflict zones between 2022 and 2025 – a 67 per cent increase compared to the period 2018-2021.   Persons with disabilities are left behind when bombs fall and warnings fail.   Last month, the Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, briefed this Council on attacks against humanitarian workers. Since then, eight more colleagues were confirmed killed in 2025. Already in 2026, 144 humanitarian workers have been reported killed, injured, abducted or detained as they try to serve those in need.   New technologies are intensifying these risks. Armed drones and artificial intelligence are accelerating the pace and reach of violence, often in densely populated areas. The use of drones increased by 4,000 per cent from 2020 to 2024 across conflicts. The impact is not only physical. The impact is psychological – constant fear, constant disruption. The consequences for children are alarming.   None of this is inevitable. These patterns are the result of choices. The choice by parties of conflict to ignore their obligations to protect civilians, and, too often, to target them.   The choice by some to adopt increasingly permissive interpretations of international humanitarian law, hollowing out the very rules designed to protect civilians during war. The choice to subordinate the protection of civilians to claims of military necessity or exceptional threat. The choice to let impunity prevail.   The choice to harness technology to increase lethality, sow devastation, and spread misinformation, instead of using it to better protect civilians.   And the choice to attack the United Nations Charter, humanitarian norms, and the tools built over decades – that extraordinary scaffolding meant to protect people from and during war.   My message to this Council and to the United Nations membership is simple: there is another path. Other choices are possible. They must be made. They must be made because protecting civilians, ensuring respect for the law, and ending impunity is not only a legal and moral obligation.   It is also in Member States’ shared interest. In a world where conflicts are rising and rearmament is accelerating, unrestrained force and unapologetic brutality do not make anyone safer. They put everyone at risk.   Those who believe war will never reach them, their families, or their people are living in a dangerous illusion. War does not respect borders. It does not respect privileges.   So, the law exists. The tools exist. What is needed now is the resolve, the leadership, the courage, and the moral clarity to hold the line and to push it forward.   Protecting civilians requires more than expressions of concern. Protecting civilians requires genuine commitment that translates into concrete action. To uphold the United Nations Charter and prevent disagreements from escalating into armed conflict.   To ensure respect for international humanitarian law, without exceptions, without selectivity, regardless of who the parties are. No reinterpretation. No exceptionalism. No double standards.   To avoid the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and call out those who raze entire cities to the ground. To stop the transfer of weapons when there is a clear risk they will be used against civilians. To safeguard medical care, humanitarian personnel and journalists; not stigmatize them, not criminalize them.   To keep human control over the use of force. To steer AI and technology toward greater, not lesser, protection of civilians. To help victims seek justice. And to end impunity.   Protecting civilians in armed conflict is not charity. It is the minimum that humanity and civilization require. It is central to peace and security.   It is a responsibility of this Council and of every Member State that signed the United Nations Charter. And it is what many people around the world expect the Member States of the United Nations to do. It cannot be outsourced, it cannot be postponed, it cannot be diluted. It is the choice we have to make, now.   http://www.unocha.org/news/ocha-tells-security-council-protecting-civilians-cannot-be-outsourced-postponed-or-diluted http://www.unocha.org/news/over-1000-aid-workers-killed-often-hands-member-states-un-relief-chief-demands-action http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-president-un-security-council-open-debate-protection-civilians-armed-conflict http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-ifrc-world-red-cross-red-crescent-day-call-uphold-protections-civilians-medical-personnel-humanitarian-workers-communities-depend-on http://globalprotectioncluster.org/publications/2474/communication-materials/advocacy-note/poc-advocacy-note-civilian-protection-2026 http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/joint-civil-society-statement-ahead-of-the-2026-open-debate-on-the-protection-of-civilians-in-armed-conflict/   May 2026   Conflict and violence become the leading driver of internal displacements - Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre   Conflict and violence drove a record 32.3 million internal displacements in 2025, surpassing disaster displacements for the first time on record, according to the Global Report on Internal Displacement 2026 published today by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC).   “Never have we recorded such a staggering number of displacements related to conflict,” said IDMC director Tracy Lucas. “As conflicts are intensifying, it is often the same people who are uprooted again and again. Yet the systems meant to protect them are being dismantled.”   The number of internal displacements includes each instance a person is forced to flee within the borders of their own country, often multiple times over the course of the year.   Meanwhile, the number of people living in internal displacement remained near record levels, at 82.2 million, the second-highest figure ever recorded.   Emerging, escalating and entrenched conflicts forced people to move repeatedly within their countries, driving a 60 per cent increase in conflict displacements compared with 2024. As instability deepened throughout the year, Iran, with 10 million internal displacements, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 9.7 million, together represented two-thirds of conflict displacements.   Disasters also continued to drive large-scale forced movement. Storms, floods and other hazards triggered 29.9 million internal displacements in 2025, a 35 per cent decrease compared with the exceptionally high levels of 2024, but still 13 per cent above the annual average of the past decade.   Countries previously less affected recorded large-scale displacements, while previous hotspots continued to be exposed, pointing to the ever-evolving patterns linked to a changing climate and need to invest in climate adaptation. Wildfires illustrated this shift by becoming an increasingly significant driver of displacement globally, accounting for more than 694,000 displacements in 2025, the hazard’s second-highest figure recorded in the past decade.   While the total number of internally displaced people fell slightly compared with 2024, it remained close to its historic peak. The decline was partly linked to reported returns, many of which took place under fragile conditions.   “Internal displacement of tens of millions is a sign of a global collapse in prevention of conflict and basic protection of civilians,” said Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). “Countless families are returning to destroyed homes and disappearing services - or cannot return at all. From DR Congo and Sudan to Iran and Lebanon, we see millions more displaced on top of the previous record numbers driven out if their homes. We cannot continue like this.”   Internal displacement remained highly concentrated: nearly half of all conflict IDPs (31.4 million) lived in just five countries, with Sudan hosting the largest number for the third consecutive year (9.1 million), followed by Colombia (7.2 m), Syria (6 m), Yemen (4.8 m) and Afghanistan (4.4 m).   In 2025, data availability declined in several contexts due to fewer assessments and reduced coverage, limiting visibility on displacement dynamics and the situation of displaced people.   “Reliable displacement data is critical for understanding where needs and risks are greatest and for ensuring that policies and resources match the scale of the challenge,” Lucas said. “With rising needs and shrinking resources, investing in national data systems and coordination remains essential.”   Global instability deepened in 2025, driving internal displacement to near-record levels worldwide. A total of 62.2 million internal displacements were reported during the year, including a record 32.3 million displacements caused by conflict and violence and 29.9 million caused by disasters.   Disaster displacements declined from the extreme highs of 2024, but risks remain severe. The 29.9 million disaster displacements recorded in 2025 were still 13 per cent above the average of the past decade, underscoring the fluctuating but persistent toll of climate and weather shocks.   Growing data gaps risk hiding the scale and impact of the crises. In 2025, IDMC observed reduced displacement data availability in 15 per cent of monitored countries, three times the share of 2024.   What is needed to reduce the number of IDPs?   Humanitarian aid alone will not suffice to reduce the scale of displacement. To help IDPs put a sustainable end to their situation, governments need to set up policies and take actions that resolve conflicts and build peace, reduce poverty and disaster risk, and enable people to return, resettle, or locally integrate in host communities. Data on displacement and solutions will continue to be key to inform such policies and actions moving forward.   * The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) is the world's leading source of data and analysis on internal displacement. Since its establishment in 1998 as part of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), IDMC has provided high-quality data, analysis and expertise on internal displacement to inform policy and operational decisions that can improve the lives of internally displaced people (IDPs) worldwide and reduce the risk of future displacement.   http://www.internal-displacement.org/news/conflict-and-violence-become-the-leading-driver-of-internal-displacements/ http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2026/ http://www.nrc.no/perspectives/2026/does-foreign-aid-really-make-a-difference http://www.nrc.no/feature/2025/a-global-displacement-crisis-as-the-world-abandons-aid http://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-middle-east-crisis-ripple-effects-strain-aid-efforts-beyond-region http://www.unhcr.org/news/announcements/acute-food-insecurity-and-malnutrition-remain-alarmingly-high-crises-deepen-un Visit the related web page
	View more stories