Understanding the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

13 hours ago 4

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) made history by clarifying how states’ existing legal obligations apply in the urgent context of the climate emergency and its intersection with human rights. Here are the key points of the court’s landmark advisory opinion and its far-reaching implications, which are expected to raise the bar for climate action.

This article is part 2 of a three-part series looking at landmark, climate-related advisory opinions issued by international courts. Read part 1 (ITLOS) and stay tuned for part 3 (ICJ) later this month.

When the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) – Latin America’s top human rights court – declared a climate emergency earlier this month, it also provided exemplary and unprecedented legal standards poised to shape global thinking. 

The court’s 234-page advisory opinion unveiled a point of moral inflection when it said: “This climate emergency can only be adequately addressed through urgent and effective actions, articulated, with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience.” 

Additionally, the court’s recognition that the obligation to prevent irreversible harm to the environment and climate constitutes a peremptory norm of international law is nothing short of revolutionary. 

The opinion has been rightly described by experts as “the most important and progressive document yet released by an international court on the climate crisis.”  

Read on for a breakdown of its key features.

Jus Cogens Status

The IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 represents a groundbreaking legal milestone in recognizing that the obligation to prevent irreversible harm to the environment and climate constitutes a jus cogens norm – a peremptory principle of international law that is non-derogable, non-negotiable, and universally binding on all States, regardless of their consent. This places environmental and climate protection within the same supreme legal category as the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, and crimes against humanity.

In other words, this means that anthropogenic conducts (human activities) that cause irreversible damage to planetary ecosystems are now considered fundamental violations of international law.

The Human-Rights Perspective

The court grounds this conclusion in the “human rights-environment nexus” – the recognition that environmental degradation creates “clear and demonstrable link of dependence” between ecosystem preservation and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. In the court’s view, safeguarding the ecological balance essential to sustaining life on Earth – including human life – is a foundational prerequisite for the realization of all internationally recognized human rights, especially the rights to life, personal integrity, health, and non-discrimination.

A human rights-based approach to climate action implies that climate mitigation and adaptation measures must prevent and redress negative climate impacts on internationally-guaranteed human rights. These include the right to life, food, water, health, development and meaningful and informed participation. As put by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “it is now beyond dispute that climate change caused by human activity has negative impacts on the full enjoyment of human rights.” 

Climate action must respect, protect, promote and fulfill all human rights for all persons, to ensure compliance with human rights obligations. Key human rights principles also encompass the rights to participate and access information. These rest on the pillars of transparency, accountability, equity, and freedom from discrimination.

Houses are nearly submerged due to flooding in Sirajganj, Bangladesh, in 2020. Houses are nearly submerged due to flooding in Sirajganj, Bangladesh, in 2020. Photo: Moniruzzaman Sazal / Climate Visuals Countdown, via Wikimedia Commons.

Climate Justice 

The IACtHR recognized that “climate change creates extraordinary and increasingly serious risks to the human rights of certain population groups whose situation of vulnerability is increased by the confluence of intersectional and structural factors of discrimination.”

At the heart of this perspective lies a powerful truth: climate change does not strike evenly – those least responsible, such as Indigenous peoples, low-income communities, women, children, and other marginalized groups, bear the greatest burdens. This perspective emphasizes that meaningful climate policy must put their protection front and center.

Such an approach resonates with what has been increasingly clear to those driving meaningful, sustainable climate action: the world needs more than conventional approaches. What is required is a holistic, rights-based, resilience-driven strategy – one rooted in systemic thinking and capable of generating transformative change beyond traditional environmental responses.

To give an example, while governments have often relied on top-down conservation efforts (such as designated protected areas) with limited community input, Indigenous-led approaches – anchored in ecological wisdom, cultural heritage, and local governance – deliver stronger biodiversity outcomes through inclusive stewardship.

More on the topic: Indigenous People Are Essential for Preventing Biodiversity Loss. They Mustn’t Be Sidelined

The Human Right to a Healthy Climate as an Independent Legal Right

The IACtHR underscored the right to a healthy environment as “fundamental to the existence of humanity,” directly echoing its earlier jurisprudence Advisory Opinion 23/17. 

In this month’s opinion, the court went further to recognize the human right to a healthy climate as an independent legal right, closely connected to – but separate from – the broader right to a healthy environment. This development significantly enhances the Inter-American legal framework by establishing a clear and direct foundation for climate-related human rights claims. As a result, both courts and individuals can now seek climate action in a more focused and autonomous manner, without relying solely on general environmental protections.

This recognition reflects the court’s insight that the climate system, while integral to the overall environment, possesses distinct global functions and characteristics that necessitate specific legal safeguards. According to the judges, harm to the climate system constitutes a unique form of environmental damage which, while related, is different from issues such as pollution or biodiversity loss, and therefore demands dedicated protection.

Urgent and Effective Action and the Prism of Resilience

Urgent and effective action entails the swift implementation of evidence-based mitigation and adaptation strategies, designed to yield measurable outcomes through coordinated efforts at all levels of society. As highlighted in the opinion, the urgency of mitigation is underscored by the “emissions gap”.

Graph showing global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in 2024. Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in 2024. Image: Copernicus Climate Change Service / ECMWF.

Citing recent figures by the United Nations Environment Programme, the court pointed out that if current policy trajectories remain unchanged, there is a 10% likelihood that global temperatures will rise above 3.6C relative to pre-industrial levels, and a 66% probability of reaching up to 3.1C by century’s end. Alarmingly, even under the most ambitious mitigation scenario, the probability of limiting warming below 2.5C remains only 66%.

The court recognized that the prism of resilience requires that climate adaptation and mitigation be combined with effective institutions to achieve sustainable development, an idea emphasized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as central to pathways leading to climate resilience. The court recognizes the United Nations definition of resilience as:

“The capacity of people, communities, societies and systems to prevent and resist, absorb, adapt, respond and recover positively, efficiently and effectively to a wide range of risks, maintaining an acceptable level of functioning without compromising long-term prospects for  sustainable development, peace and security, human rights and well-being for all people.”

Nature as a Rights-Bearing Entity 

By a majority of four to three, the court made a narrow but significant decision to recognize the legal personality of nature as a component of the right to a healthy environment. This recognition represents a fundamental shift from treating nature merely as property or an exploitable resource to acknowledging it as a subject of rights protected under the American Convention on Human Right. This recognizes the essential structural role of nature in maintaining the planetary conditions that make life habitable.

More on the topic: Nature Rights: What Countries Grant Legal Personhood Status to Nature And Why?

Final Thoughts

As the well-respected Christiana Figueres – former executive secretary of the UNFCCC and a key architect of the Paris Agreement – rightly observed, the IACtHR’s advisory opinion is unique in that it redefines climate action as a human rights obligation, not a matter of political discretion. 

While advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as contentious rulings, they carry considerable interpretive and normative authority, especially for the 20 states that have formally recognized the court’s jurisdiction. More broadly, they shape jurisprudence, guide domestic courts, and inform a rising global consensus that climate harm is inseparable from violations of rights to life, integrity, health, and non-discrimination.

Note: The IACtHR exercises interpretive authority over both the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and its Additional Protocol concerning economic, social, and cultural rights, commonly known as the San Salvador Protocol. To date, 23 states across the Americas have ratified the ACHR, with 20 formally accepting the court’s jurisdiction.

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

Read Entire Article