Advisory Opinion 32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Climate Emergency and Human Rights.
Environmental Law & Climate Change Special Bulletin | Advisory Opinion 32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Climate Emergency and Human Rights.
Link to download in PDF.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“IACHR”) issued on July 3, 2025, its Advisory Opinion 32/25 (“AO”) on climate emergency and human rights, adopted on May 29, 2025. The opinion delivers legal interpretations regarding the obligations of States in the field of climate change.
In 2023, Chile and Colombia submitted a request for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency under international human rights law, pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and in accordance with Articles 70(1) and 72(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR.
Once the proceedings had commenced, (i) 263 written observations were received (from States, international organizations, NGOs, academia, the private sector, among others); (ii) 10 courts from the region (generally, the highest courts of many countries) submitted case law related to the climate emergency and human rights; (iii) 2 public hearings were held (with the participation of 185 delegations); and (iv) additional submissions were received from some delegations following the hearings. It is worth noting that the process was characterized by a high level of participation from a broad range of stakeholders.
Relevance
For the first time, the IACHR establishes standards for States regarding the prevention, mitigation, and reparation of climate-related harm, and affirms that climate change may constitute a violation of human rights.
The IACHR affirms that all member States of the Organization of American States (“OAS”) are bound by this AO, even if they have not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.
Furthermore, it considers that climate change is a phenomenon accelerated by greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions resulting from human activities, and that its impacts constitute a risk. Therefore, the current situation may be characterized as a climate emergency. The AO underscores that climate change affects the necessary conditions for human beings to enjoy a dignified existence.
The AO defines the current situation as a climate emergency, characterized by the convergence and interrelation of three factors: (i) the urgency of effective action; (ii) the severity of the impacts; and (iii) the complexity of the required responses.
The IACHR establishes that the obligation to preserve the balance of the shared ecosystem must be understood as a peremptory norm of international law (ius cogens), as it constitutes an essential prerequisite for the validity of fundamental rights under international law.
Obligations of States
It is the understanding of the IACHR that, in the face of the climate emergency, States have the duty to respect and ensure certain fundamental rights. Among these obligations, the following stand out: (i) to refrain from any conduct that would result in setbacks or delays in the adoption of measures aimed at protecting human rights from the impacts of climate change; (ii) to refrain from adopting regressive measures in climate or environmental policy, unless such measures are exceptional, justified by objective criteria, and pass a strict test of necessity and proportionality; (iii) not to obstruct access to information that is essential for the population to adequately face the risks arising from the climate emergency; (iv) to ensure a clear domestic and international legal framework that establishes enforceable duties for both the State and private actors — including corporations — guided by the best available science and consistent with international commitments undertaken; (v) to organize the governmental apparatus in a manner that ensures the full exercise of human rights in the context of the climate emergency; (vi) to fulfil the duty of environmental cooperation in a broad sense, not limited to cases of transboundary harm; (vii) to recognize and protect Nature not only for its instrumental connection to human rights, but also for its intrinsic value and its interdependence with life on the planet; among other obligations.
Specific obligations in the context of the climate emergency
The IACHR considers that, in the context of the climate emergency, the right to a healthy climate gives rise to specific obligations related to:
i) the mitigation of GHG emissions;
ii) the protection of Nature and its components; and
iii) the progressive advancement toward sustainable development.
In particular, with respect to GHG emissions mitigation, States are obligated to:
a) define an adequate mitigation target;
b) supervise and enforce compliance in the area of mitigation, which includes the authority to investigate, prosecute, and sanction non-compliance (including by corporations); and
c) assess the climate impact, for which environmental impact studies must explicitly include an evaluation of the potential effects on the climate system.
Furthermore, the IACHR establishes that each State’s mitigation obligations depend on its historical and current contributions to climate change, its capacity to implement measures, and its particular circumstances. The mitigation target must be ambitious, legally binding, time-bound, and progressively more stringent, considering technological and scientific advances. Any reversal in these targets must be strictly justified, as it is generally incompatible with the obligations undertaken.
The IACHR also warns that the energy transition must safeguard human rights against potential negative impacts, such as those arising from the extraction of critical minerals. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive policies that include decent employment, training, social protection, and compensatory measures for affected sectors. Moreover, it highlights the importance of promoting investment in innovation, green finance, and policies that facilitate the transition of polluting sectors. Under the standard of heightened due diligence (debida diligencia reforzada), States must ensure coherence between their international and domestic commitments, promote coordinated actions in investment, financing, and trade, and make public financing and incentives conditional upon strict compliance with mitigation policies.
Regulation of corporate conduct
The IACHR establishes that, under the standard of heightened due diligence, States must strictly supervise and monitor both public and private activities that generate GHG emissions, in accordance with their national mitigation strategies.
While the specific activities subject to oversight may vary from one State to another, the IACHR considers that it is the State’s duty to supervise and monitor activities related to: (a) fossil fuels (exploration, extraction, transport, and processing); (b) cement production; and (c) agro-industrial activities. Oversight must be particularly rigorous in the case of companies with significant responsibility for cumulative and current emissions. State monitoring mechanisms must periodically assess progress toward national mitigation targets, issue recommendations, and be empowered to carry out extraordinary inspections when duly justified or requested by interested parties.
Furthermore, oversight must include powers to investigate, sanction, and order the cessation of unlawful activities, as well as to require compensation for harm to the global climate system, without prejudice to additional sanctions for violations of human rights.
Assessment of climate impact in Environmental Impact Studies
The IACHR establishes that, given that harm to the climate system constitutes environmental damage which the State is obligated to prevent, Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) must explicitly include an evaluation of the potential effects on the climate system. In other words, it must contain a specific section dedicated to assessing the climate impact, in such a way that this impact is clearly distinguished from other types of environmental impacts.
Consequently, the IACHR considers that States must carefully evaluate the approval of activities that may potentially cause significant damage to the climate system. In this regard, States must consider the best available science, the mitigation strategy and targets previously defined, and the irreversible nature of climate impacts. All of this is necessary to adopt the most effective preventive measures regarding potential harm to the global climate system.
The EIS must consider the nature and magnitude of the project, its possible repercussions on the climate system, include a contingency plan, and provide for mitigation measures in the event of potential climate-related impacts.
Heightened Due Diligence (HDD)
The IACHR considers that States must act with HDD in order to fulfil their duty of prevention arising from the obligation to guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention in the context of the climate emergency.
Within this framework, the IACHR notes that HDD in climate matters entails, among other elements, the thorough identification and assessment of risks, the adoption of proactive and ambitious preventive measures to avert the worst climate scenarios, and the use of the best available science in the design and implementation of climate policies and actions. This diligence also requires integrating a human rights perspective at all stages of policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring, ensuring that the measures do not generate new vulnerabilities or exacerbate existing ones.
Moreover, it includes the continuous and adequate monitoring of the effects and impacts of adopted measures, the strict observance of procedural rights — in particular, access to information, public participation, and access to justice — as well as permanent transparency and accountability in State action on climate matters. This diligence also encompasses the effective regulation and oversight of corporate due diligence, and the reinforcement of international cooperation, especially in the areas of technology transfer, financing, and capacity-building.
The IACHR clarifies that the existence of this obligation of prevention and HDD is not conditioned upon the State’s level of economic development; rather, it applies equally to both developed and developing States.
Nature as a subject of rights
The IACHR recognizes ecosystems as complex and interdependent systems, where each component is essential for the overall stability and continuity of life. In this context, the AO acknowledges nature’s right to maintain its essential ecological processes in order to consolidate a genuinely sustainable development model that respects planetary boundaries and guarantees vital resources for present and future generations. It understands that recognizing ecosystems’ own rights is fundamental to protecting their long-term integrity and functionality, providing the legal system with effective tools to confront the planetary triple crisis and aimed at preventing irreversible existential harm.
Furthermore, the IACHR establishes that States must refrain not only from causing significant environmental harm but also bear a positive obligation to adopt measures for the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems, based on the best available science and respecting traditional, local, and indigenous knowledge. Such measures must be applied under the principle of non-regression and fully guarantee procedural rights.
The IACHR observes that the recognition of nature as a subject of rights does not introduce content foreign to the Inter-American corpus iuris, but rather represents a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment. Moreover, it reflects a growing impetus towards legal conceptions and protection mechanisms that transcend the traditional anthropocentric approach, thereby strengthening State responses to climate challenges.
Climate damage
The IACHR holds that the impairment of the climate system constitutes climate damage, which is considered a specific form of environmental harm but requires a distinct and tailored approach for its prevention. This particularity underpins the autonomous recognition of the human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment, with specific State obligations in response to the climate crisis.
The IACHR defines a healthy climate as one resulting from a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, while also noting that natural climate variability can generate risks for ecosystems.
Regulation of corporate conduct
The IACHR affirms that corporations are called upon to play a fundamental role in addressing the climate emergency.
Accordingly, it states that States must adopt measures to prevent human rights violations caused by both State-owned and private companies, as well as to investigate, sanction, and ensure reparation for their consequences when such violations occur. In this way, States are obligated to regulate the adoption by companies of actions aimed at respecting human rights.
Thus, the IACHR foresees that States must: (i) urge all companies to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and related impacts on human rights; (ii) enact legislation obliging companies to exercise due diligence regarding human rights and climate change throughout their entire value chain; (iii) require companies to disclose in an accessible manner their greenhouse gas emissions across the value chain; (iv) mandate that companies implement measures to reduce such emissions and address their contribution to climate and mitigation goals in all operations; and (v) adopt a series of rules to discourage greenwashing and undue corporate influence in the political and regulatory sphere in this area, as well as support the actions of human rights defenders.
On another note, the IACHR draws attention to the need to protect human rights from violations that may arise in connection with the extraction of rare and critical minerals for the energy transition. It also considers it necessary to implement policies that promote green investments and facilitate the transition of polluting sectors.
Trade and Investment Agreements
The Court understands that States must review their existing trade and investment agreements, including investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, “to ensure that they do not limit or restrict efforts related to climate change and human rights.”
Other rights
The IACHR emphasizes that the respect and guarantee of procedural rights are fundamental to ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of State action in the face of the climate emergency. It initially addresses democracy and procedural rights in general, before examining specific rights such as access to science, recognition of local knowledge, access to information, political participation, access to justice, and the defense of human rights. It also highlights the importance of citizen participation in climate-related decisions, linking it to the Escazú Agreement, which protects the right to a healthy environment for all present and future persons.
Regarding the right of access to justice, the Court notes that its fulfilment is essential in the context of the climate emergency, and States must guarantee adequate means for the administration of justice, including the principle of pro actione, reasonable timeframes, standing, rules of evidence, and reparation—issues that will be analysed in detail. It is emphasized that many American legal systems provide for broad standing for collective or public environmental protection, which is also applicable to the right to a healthy climate.
Conclusion
This AO is part of the growing phenomenon of climate litigation at the global level and represents a significant precedent in Latin America. Its content aligns with recent rulings of other international tribunals, such as the Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland case decided by the European Court of Human Rights.