In 2011, the Marshall Islands and Palau tried to bring a climate lawsuit to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. They failed to garner enough support. Why it matters: On Wednesday, the UN General Assembly took the extraordinary step of unanimously adopting a resolution that would allow for this. The court is seeking an advisory opinion setting out what countries’ obligations to protect the climate are in order to ensure human rights. The big picture: The key to understanding why this resolution succeeded where the previous one failed, and to understanding the potential implications of the ICJ’s ruling on this issue, is the climate and emissions trends that have occurred since those previous efforts. This time, Vanuatu — another Pacific island nation vulnerable to climate change — is leading the effort. Since 2011, the world has been plagued by extreme weather events, and climate studies have increasingly warned that unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut quickly and sharply, conditions will get worse. The latest warning from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came just last week. Although countries came together in 2015 to adopt the Paris Agreement, emissions are still rising. The world is at risk of breaching the protective barriers it has put in place. Between the lines: The implications of a likely advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice are potentially far-reaching and difficult to predict, but they vary widely by country and venue, experts tell Axios. Michael Gerrard, a climate law professor at Columbia University who advised proponents of the 2011 International Court of Justice proposal, said the biggest consequences won’t be felt directly in U.S. courts. Other countries could see more immediate consequences. For example, the Dutch Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2019 requiring the government to adopt stricter emissions targets, partly on the grounds of human rights protection.