Advisory Opinion 32/25 on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights

Nature of the Case

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded that the member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) have an obligation to guarantee various rights (both substantive and procedural) and their equal enjoyment, arising from the climate emergency facing the international community. The opinion underscored the need to address climate action through a human rights framework, to protect Nature as an autonomous subject of rights, and to implement all climate action structures with due regard for sustainable development and the most vulnerable populations.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

While only two States requested the guidance, the opinion of the Court is binding on all of the Member States within the OAS; Chile and Colombia, by being the requesting states, are preemptively positioned to serve in possible leadership roles for the implementation of the Court’s opinion. The enforcement of the obligations is to be implemented by the proper authorities within each State utilizing the considerations and guidelines laid out by the Court. The Court’s stated obligations for the States are not lofty goals as the opinion is in line with climate change response measures that some States have been implementing over the past several years.

Significance of the Case

The Advisory Opinion establishes a direct connection between the climate crisis and social inequality, affirming that climate change constitutes a human rights emergency. The Court concluded that States have urgent legal obligations to act, be held accountable, and provide reparations for harm caused. It also recognized the duty to prevent irreversible harm to the climate and the environment as jus cogens—a peremptory norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted. The Court further affirmed States’ obligations to cooperate in addressing loss and damage, ensure access to justice, and provide effective reparations, while applying an intersectional approach to the protection of human rights defenders, acknowledging the particular risks faced by Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, women, and youth. In this context, the Court invoked the principle of intergenerational equity and welcomed the framework of the rights of nature, emphasizing the need for a just and sustainable transition.

This Advisory Opinion joins a vast and growing body of international jurisprudence—including advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as well as a pending request before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights—that expands the responsibilities of States and private actors to address the climate crisis through a human rights lens. The ruling was shaped by an unprecedented level of participation from Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, social movements, youth, and civil society organizations, with more than 260 submissions received. The Court also affirmed that its interpretation applies not only under the American Convention but also under the American Declaration, directly impacting States such as the United States and Canada.

“This ruling sets a minimum threshold for climate action. States are now required not only to act but to do so with ambition, justice, and accountability. This is a powerful tool for communities to demand justice, participation, and reparations,” said Adrián Martínez, of La Ruta del Clima, an ESCR-Net member in Costa Rica.