Abstract
The Advisory Opinion (OC-32/25) delivered on July 03, 2025 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on “climate emergency and human rights” (CEHR) constitutes a groundbreaking development in the field of international environmental and human rights law. Building on OC-23/17, the Opinion explicitly recognizes the human right to a healthy and stable climate, as well as Nature as a subject of rights, marking a decisive shift toward an ecocentric paradigm within the Inter-American System. This article analyzes the Opinion's legal reasoning, its articulation of substantive, procedural, and intersectional State obligations, and its contribution to consolidating an “Inter-American ecological constitutionalism.” Through a comparative and normative approach, it examines the Opinion's implications for the progressive realization of environmental and climate rights, the emergence of environmental jus cogens, and the advancement of global climate justice. Ultimately, the CEHR AO is argued to be both a regional and universal milestone, positioning Latin America as a normative innovator in the protection of human and ecological integrity in the face of the climate emergency.
Keywords
Introduction
In recent decades, global concern about the planet's future and the viability of life on Earth has intensified exponentially, largely due to the accelerating impacts of climate change. 1 Worldwide, the climate system faces a complex and precarious situation marked by sustained and rapid warming. According to data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2 the average global temperature in 2024 reached its highest level since records began, surpassing even the record set in 2023. This increase, however, is far from an isolated event; rather, it reflects a persistent and alarming trend. Since 2015, every year has ranked among the warmest ever recorded. Moreover, atmospheric concentrations of major greenhouse gases (GHG) continue to rise. By 2023, as per the WMO report, unprecedented levels had been reached. It directly affects key components of the climate system – such as oceans and wind patterns – causing serious harm to both human populations and ecosystems. 3 This civilizational crisis has prompted an unprecedented wave of climate-related judicialization at the international level, reflected in a series of parallel Advisory Opinion (AO) proceedings on climate change before various international courts and tribunals (ICTs) 4 – the three AO have been delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23, 2025, 5 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on July 3, 2025 6 and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered its AO (May 21, 2024) 7 whereas one more AO from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (IACHPR) 8 is still pending. 9
IACtHR Advisory Opinion: The Setting
On January 9, 2023, the Governments of Chile and Colombia requested an AO from the IACtHR to clarify States’ obligations in addressing the climate emergency and human rights within the framework of international human rights law. This request culminated in the AO (OC-32/25), adopted on May 29, 2025 and publicly presented on July 3, 2025, constitutes the central focus of this article.
Among these jurisprudential developments, OC-32/25 stands out as an unprecedented normative milestone within the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS). Deliberated almost concurrently with the AO on the Right to Care (OC-31/25), the AO on climate change & human rights (OC-32/25; AO on CC), after an unprecedented degree of deliberative pluralism, 10 was issued on May 29, 2025, and publicly presented on July 3, 2025, by the President of the IACtHR, Judge Nancy Hernández. 11 The IACtHR received 263 written submissions from 613 stakeholders including nine States, international organizations, Indigenous peoples, research centres, and environmental NGOs. The Court held public hearings in Bridgetown (Barbados), Brasília, and Manaus (Brazil), with the participation of 183 delegations. 12
The advisory function of the IACtHR is rooted in Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) as well as Articles 70(1) and 70(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. They empower this regional court to interpret the provisions of the Convention and other inter-American treaties at the request of Member States or organs of the Organization of American States (OAS). Although AO are not formally binding, they constitute authoritative interpretations of inter-American law and carry significant persuasive weight, particularly within the framework of the control of conventionality. 13
In its pronouncement, the Court expressly recognized the existence of a “climate emergency” that threatens the effective enjoyment of fundamental rights and demands immediate, coordinated State action grounded in the principles of precaution, prevention, and intergenerational equity. 14 According to President Hernández, the AO CC (OC-32/25) represents “a decisive step toward the consolidation of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate,” with structural implications for the ACHR, the Protocol of San Salvador, and other foundational instruments of the inter-American system. 15 Thus, the AO CC forms part of a broader global trend toward the consolidation of international climate law, in which national and regional courts play a central role in defining the legal obligations of States and corporations in responding to climate change. 16
Accordingly, and in view of the significance of this pronouncement, this article offers a systematic, legal, and comparative analysis of the IACtHR's AO on CC, regarded as a landmark in the consolidation of the human right to a healthy climate and the advancement of Latin American ecological constitutionalism. It first examines the context and background of the AO on CC, situating it within the evolution of the Inter-American Human Rights System and the development of international environmental law. Second, it analyses the AO's object and scope, emphasizing its legal foundations, consultative questions, and the Court's contributions concerning the principles of climate justice and intergenerational equity. Subsequently, it addresses the substantive, procedural, and intersectional obligations derived from the AO, which strengthen States’ duties to mitigate, adapt, prevent, and remedy climate-related harm while ensuring public participation, access to information, and the protection of vulnerable groups and environmental defenders.
The article then assesses the broader impact and implications of AO on CC for inter-American climate governance, examining its potential to guide public policy and to foster climate action rooted in human rights and ecological justice. Finally, it presents a brief international comparison between AO on CC, the ITLOS AO (2024), and that of the ICJ (2025), highlighting the pioneering role of the IACtHR (2025) in integrating the right to a healthy climate, the rights of Nature, 17 and human rights within a unified global normative paradigm. The article concludes with final reflections offering a juridical assessment of AO on CC.
IAHR System: Evolution of Environmental Protection
The Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) constitutes the principal regional mechanism for the promotion, protection, and guarantee of human rights in the Americas. 18 Created within the framework of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IAHRS is composed of two organs: (i) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and (ii) the IACtHR. While the IACHR focuses on the promotion and defence of human rights, the Court performs both contentious and advisory functions, adjudicating cases involving violations committed by States that have recognized its jurisdiction and interpreting inter-American provisions within its competence. 19
In normative terms, the IAHRS is grounded in several foundational instruments, including the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948), the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR, 1969), and its Additional Protocol in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (the Protocol of San Salvador, 1988). 20 The latter, in Article 11, expressly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment, imposing on States the duty to promote its protection, preservation, and improvement. This early recognition placed the region at the forefront of ecological constitutionalism. 21
Complementing this framework is the interpretative function of AOs, provided for in Article 64 of the ACHR, which empowers the Court to issue rulings on the interpretation and scope of inter-American human rights norms. Although not legally binding, these opinions hold considerable persuasive authority, influencing both national jurisprudence and the development of international human rights law 22 .
Among these, the IACtHR AO OC-23/17 (2017), stands out as a landmark. In that opinion, the Court recognized for the first time the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, independent of direct violations of other human rights. 23 It also established preventive State obligations, including those with extraterritorial projection. 24 As Ferreira Méndez, Araldi Diniz, and González Filho observe, this pronouncement “adopts an innovative ecocentric perspective within a traditionally anthropocentric system”. 25 The Court further emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and the dual—individual and collective—dimension of the right to a healthy environment, which must be guaranteed for present and future generations alike. 26
This doctrine was subsequently materialized in the Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina judgment (2020), in which the Court applied the principles (of OC-23/17) to expand environmental protection, recognizing that Nature possesses intrinsic value beyond its instrumental utility to human beings. 27
At the normative level, the process of “ecologization” (ecologización) of the IAHRS was consolidated through Resolution No. 3/21 of the IACHR and its Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights (REDESCA), entitled Climate Emergency: Scope of Inter-American Human Rights Obligations. 28 Although indicative in nature, this instrument carries high interpretative value and was the first to apply human rights norms directly to the context of the climate crisis. It established specific State obligations, including: (i) The integration of a human rights–based approach into all climate-related policies and regulations; (ii) The enhanced protection of persons and groups in situations of vulnerability or historical discrimination; and (iii) The guarantee of access rights—to information, public participation, and environmental justice in line with the Escazú Agreement. 29
Within this regional context, the AO CC (OC-32/25) marks a decisive turning point. The IACtHR became the first international tribunal to explicitly recognize the human right to a stable and safe climate, consolidating a legal framework that interconnects human rights, the rights of Nature, and climate justice. 30 This recognition emerges within a broader global context of expanding climate litigation, influenced by the decisions of the ITLOs (2024), the ECHR (2024), and the ICJ AO on CC (2025). 31
As Perotti Pinciroli aptly observes, “the Latin American trajectory demonstrates that the region's theoretical and practical knowledge not only responds to its internal urgencies but also contributes to redefining the future of international law and human rights on a global scale”. 32 Indeed, the evolution of the IAHRS in environmental and climate matters confirms this assertion: Latin America has become a juridical laboratory of ecocentrism, where human rights and the rights of Nature converge within a new paradigm of eco-social and climate justice. 33 Accordingly, it is of particular importance to analyze the principal doctrinal and normative contributions of IACtHR AO (OC-32/25), its impact on the consolidation of the right to a healthy climate, and its implications for both regional and global climate governance. 34
IACtHR Advisory Opinion: Object and scope
As previously noted, IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) arose from a joint request submitted by the governments of Chile and Colombia seeking to clarify the scope of States’ obligations in the face of the climate crisis within the framework of the ACHR, the Protocol of San Salvador, and other legal instruments of the Inter-American System. 35 The Court framed its analysis within the express recognition of a global climate emergency that requires immediate, cooperative action centred on the protection and effective guarantee of human rights, as primary and overarching obligations of States. 36
In its reasoning, the IACtHR emphasized that although advisory opinions lack binding force, they possess substantive interpretative authority and serve as normative parameters guiding domestic legislation, strengthening the control of conventionality, and orienting judicial conduct in State Parties. 37 Furthermore, the Court underscored that their influence transcends the regional sphere, noting that its interpretations can inform global jurisprudential debates before the ACHPR, the ECHR, and the ICJ, thereby contributing to a convergent trend linking climate justice and human rights. 38
From a methodological standpoint, the IACtHR AO is grounded in an interdisciplinary and eco-centric legal approach that integrates human rights, international environmental law, and the principles of intergenerational justice and climate equity. 39 The Court relied on a broad corpus juris, including national, regional, and international jurisprudence, as well as multilateral environmental treaties—among them the 2015 Paris Agreement, 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 40 In addition, it incorporated soft-law instruments such as the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 1992 Rio Declaration, underscoring the growing integration between climate responsibility and human rights. 41
Out of the twenty questions presented in the original request, the IACtHR decided to address three central axes explicitly, clearly articulating the framework of States’ obligations:
Substantive obligations concerning the effective enjoyment of human rights in the context of the climate emergency, including duties of mitigation, adaptation, and prevention of environmental harm. Procedural obligations relating to access to environmental information, public participation in climate decision-making, and access to environmental justice, consistent with the standards established by the Escazú Agreement.
42
Specific obligations toward groups in situations of vulnerability—such as children, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, women, older persons, and environmental human rights defenders—who suffer the most severe impacts of climate change.
43
Thus, the AO not only defines the legal content of States’ obligations in addressing the climate crisis but also consolidates an integrative normative framework in which the right to a healthy environment and the right to a stable and safe climate emerge as autonomous, justiciable, and interdependent rights. In doing so, the IACtHR contributes to the evolution of international human rights law toward a new phase—the Inter-American ecological constitutionalism—which recognizes Nature as a subject of rights and redefines State responsibility in the face of climate collapse. 44
State Obligations: Substantive, Procedural, and Intersectional
The IACtHR distinguishes three principal dimensions of obligations: substantive, procedural, and intersectional. 45 Substantive obligations encompass the recognition of (a) an autonomous right to a healthy climate—which includes the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation, and ecological restoration; (b) Nature as a subject of rights; (c) environmental jus cogens; and (d) the enforceability of the right to a healthy environment and of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights (ESCER) in the context of the climate emergency. 46 Procedural obligations, in turn, consolidate the principle of environmental democracy by guaranteeing access to information, meaningful public participation, and access to justice in environmental and climate-related matters. 47 Finally, intersectional obligations aim to provide reinforced protection for groups in situations of vulnerability—including Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, women, children, older persons, and environmental defenders—who face differentiated and disproportionate climate impacts. 48 This dimension requires that climate policies integrate substantive equality, intergenerational justice, and non-discrimination as structural axes of the State's response.
Substantive Obligations
The IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) redefines the scope of State obligations in the context of the climate emergency, establishing a normative framework that articulates the duties of respect, protection, and fulfilment of human rights in relation to environmental and climate impacts. 49 The Court maintains that the climate crisis generates a new legal context of heightened responsibility, requiring States to adopt all reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights arising from the alteration of the climate system. 50
Within this framework, the Court introduces the principle of “heightened due diligence”, under which States must prevent and reduce foreseeable climate risks through the implementation of policies on mitigation, adaptation, and ecological restoration—paying particular attention to the vulnerability of rights holders and the gravity of potential harm. 51 This notion expands the content of the duty of prevention, linking it to climate science and the obligation to act in accordance with the precautionary principle. 52
The Autonomous Right to a Healthy Climate
One of the most significant advances of IACtHR AO is the recognition of the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous human right—independent yet complementary to the right to a healthy environment. 53 As Professor Peña Chacón notes, this allows for a precise delimitation of the specific obligations of States in the face of the climate crisis, which the Court itself characterizes as “one of the gravest threats to the human rights of the future”. 54 Such recognition enables the implementation of special measures on an autonomous basis, beyond the general duties related to environmental protection.
The IACtHR follows an argumentative line similar, mutatis mutandis, to that sustained in the case Habitantes de La Oroya v. Peru (November 27, 2023). 55 Drawing on its earlier Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, the Court held that, from the substantive elements that constitute the human right to a healthy environment—such as air, water, food, the ecosystem, and the climate—other human rights may derive, including the right to clean air and the right to water. 56
In this instance, the IACtHR concludes that the right to a healthy environment, enshrined in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), imposes on States the duty to protect Nature, its components (including human beings), and the interrelations that connect them, against the adverse effects of climate change. 57 Consequently, it recognizes that, derived from the right to a healthy environment, there exists a right to a healthy climate, autonomously enforceable whether affected individually or collectively, in the sphere of both present and future generations. 58
The Court defines this new right as “the existence of a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, essential for the survival of humanity and of Nature” 59 , further noting that this right seeks to “protect the global climate system for the benefit of humankind as a whole—including both present and future generations—and of Nature, as the physical and biological foundation of life”. 60
This interpretation resonates with the UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 (2022) recognizing the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, and extends it to the climate dimension. 61 It also aligns with the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13 (2021), the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, 2024), and comparative developments in national courts such as Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands (2019), Leghari v. Pakistan (2015), and Future Generations v. Colombia (2018). 62
Doctrinally, the recognition of an autonomous right to a healthy climate builds upon the ecocentric and intergenerational evolution of international environmental law. Some scholars have emphasized that environmental protection can no longer be understood solely in anthropocentric terms, but must incorporate planetary boundaries, ecosystem integrity, and intra- and inter-generational equity as normative imperatives. 63
The autonomy of the right to a healthy climate has, however, been subject to critique in the dissenting opinion of Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg. 64 She argues that it is unnecessary to create an autonomous right to a healthy climate, as it should instead be integrated and developed within the right to a healthy environment, respecting the limits and standards of the inter-American legal framework. She grounds her position in three main points: (i) the absence of a sufficient legal basis within the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) to consider the right to a healthy climate as autonomous; (ii) the fact that the right to a healthy environment itself is not directly enforceable before the Court, as its recognition in the Convention is indirect and subject to progressive development by States; and (iii) the principle that an accessory right cannot be enforceable if the principal right is not (accessorium sequitur principale). Consequently, she contends that the protection of the global climate system can and should be understood as part of the material dimension of the right to a healthy environment. 65
She recalls that the Court has already affirmed that this right includes both procedural and substantive aspects, among which the climate is explicitly mentioned.
66
For example, in La Oroya v. Peru, the Court stated: “[…] the Court has recognized that the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest and a fundamental right for the existence of humanity. Likewise, it has established that the right to a healthy environment comprises both procedural and substantive elements. The former give rise to obligations concerning access to information, political participation, and access to justice; the latter include air, water, food, the ecosystem, and the climate […]”.
67
Yet, as commentators such as Piquer (2025) and Tigre (2023) note, the recognition of a right to a healthy climate constitutes a logical and normative development of the Court's prior reasoning in OC-23/17 and Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina (2020), representing the systematization of climate obligations under the umbrella of Article 26 ACHR.
68
Therefore, the Court's recognition marks a crucial step in consolidating the international legal framework on climate justice, endowing with its own normative content a right that links climate stability with human dignity and ecological integrity.
69
Moreover, as previously noted, the Court underscores that protection of this right encompasses individual, collective, and intergenerational dimensions, consistent with the principle of intergenerational equity,
70
and that its effective guarantee constitutes a precondition for the exercise of other fundamental rights, such as the rights to life, health, food, water, and housing.
71
Specifically, paragraph §302 establishes: “In its collective sphere, this right protects the collective interest of present and future generations of human beings and other species to maintain a climate system suitable for ensuring their well-being and mutual balance, in light of the grave existential threats derived from the effects of the climate emergency. The holders of this dimension of the right to a healthy climate are indivisibly and non-exclusively all those who share this collective interest. The noncompliance with international obligations aimed at protecting the global climate system necessarily affects that interest and generates State responsibility. Therefore, measures intended to end the violation, to prevent its recurrence, and to repair its consequences must simultaneously benefit present and future humanity, as well as Nature as a whole (infra §§557–560).”
72
In the context of the global climate crisis, the Inter-American Court considers that the right to a healthy climate imposes concrete and enforceable obligations on States in relation to three fundamental axes: 1. The mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 2. The protection of Nature and its components; and 3. The progressive advancement toward sustainable and just development. These obligations derive both from the substantive content of the recognized right and from the general duty of guarantee established in Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).
(1) Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Court identifies mitigation as the first essential pillar of the right to a healthy climate. States therefore have the duty to adopt adequate regulations, to exercise effective supervision and oversight, and to require climate impact assessments for any activities that may generate significant emissions.
In accordance with the international legal framework—namely the 1992 UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement 75 —States must establish, report, and periodically update their NDCs. This duty entails setting clear, ambitious, and verifiable emission-reduction targets within a binding regulatory framework. The Court stresses that mitigation must be guided by the principle of proactive prevention, requiring ex ante measures to avoid environmental harm rather than merely repair it. Consequently, States are obligated not only to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions but also to protect carbon sinks—including forests, mangroves, oceans, and soils—and to conserve ecosystems that regulate the climate and the planet's natural cycles.
The Court also introduces the principle of prevention of irreversible harm, under which States must avoid actions that could cause massive environmental degradation or climate collapse, even when the impacts are transboundary in nature. In order to assess differentiated State responsibility, the IACtHR proposes three evaluative criteria:
Historical and current contribution to climate change (per capita emissions, production and consumption patterns, industrial and energy history); Economic and technological capacity (GDP, debt, fiscal capacity, access to clean technologies and climate financing); and Socioeconomic conditions and context (human development index, poverty, inequality, and climate vulnerability).
Each State must therefore define a national mitigation strategy compatible with its NDCs and grounded in a human rights approach. Such a strategy must be legally binding, contain specific timelines, and ensure progressive and ambitious implementation. Accordingly, the Court requires normative coherence between domestic law and international mitigation commitments, stressing the obligation to avoid contradictory policies in trade, investment, or finance that may undermine climate objectives.
A central innovation of IACtHR AO is the introduction of the standard of heightened due diligence, applicable both to State policies and corporate conduct. This standard demand that climate measures be proportionate to the level of risk and impact, particularly in sectors with high environmental footprints—such as fossil fuels, mining, agribusiness, and deforestation. Moreover, the Court emphasizes that strategies must be based on the best available scientific evidence, discouraging dependence on unproven or uncertain technologies.
The Court extends State obligations to the corporate sphere, affirming that States must adopt legislative and administrative measures to prevent, investigate, and sanction human rights violations committed by public or private enterprises and ensure comprehensive reparation of harm. Specific duties include:
Requiring climate and human-rights due diligence throughout entire value chains; Mandating public and accessible disclosure of both direct and indirect emissions; Establishing verifiable GHG-reduction targets aligned with national and international objectives; Preventing greenwashing and protecting environmental defenders; and Applying the “polluter pays” principle, with regulatory burdens differentiated according to risk and impact levels.
The IACtHR holds that all States must exercise effective control over high-emission sectors—such as energy, transport, cement, and agribusiness—through independent mechanisms with sufficient resources. This duty includes investigating and sanctioning violations, as well as preventing climate corruption, which undermines the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Furthermore, the IACtHR establishes the obligation to conduct specific climate impact assessments for projects likely to generate significant emissions. These assessments must be carried out using the best available science, by independent technical entities, must consider cumulative impacts, and must guarantee informed participation of affected communities. The Court also guides States to adopt and periodically update national adaptation plans that minimize the “negative side effects” of implemented measures, 76 in line with the notion of a just climate transition.
(2) Protection of Nature and Its Components
The Inter-American Court reaffirms that States have a duty to protect and restore ecosystems as an essential component of the right to a healthy climate. Even when preventive measures have been adopted, States must act immediately to mitigate environmental damage, employing the best available science and technology.
77
In the face of the multiple impacts of climate change—such as rising sea levels, droughts, heat waves, and extreme weather events—the Court establishes that States are required to:
Create monitoring and ecological resilience mechanisms at both national and local scales; Develop policies for the conservation and expansion of protected areas; Prioritize the protection of highly vulnerable ecosystems in Latin America and the Caribbean, including the Amazon, mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, and Andean glaciers; Strengthen international cooperation regarding shared ecosystems; Promote regional platforms for the exchange of climate data and traditional knowledge; and Implement evaluation and monitoring systems to measure the effectiveness of environmental and climate policies.
78
This set of obligations underscores the intrinsic interdependence between the protection of Nature and the safeguarding of human rights. By affirming Nature's role as a subject of rights, the Court extends the State's duty of care beyond anthropocentric parameters, emphasizing the ecocentric vision that underpins Inter-American environmental constitutionalism. 79
The protection and restoration of ecosystems are not merely instrumental measures to prevent harm to humans, but substantive obligations that seek to preserve the integrity and functionality of the Earth's systems themselves. Consequently, States must adopt restoration policies that rehabilitate degraded ecosystems, ensure the continuity of ecological cycles, and sustain the services that make life possible for present and future generations.
(3) Progressive Advancement for Sustainable Development
The IACtHR reaffirms that States must ensure a just and equitable transition toward an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable development model. Regression in climate or social matters may constitute a violation of the obligation of progressivity, unless it is duly justified according to technical and human rights-based criteria. 80 According to the IACtHR, sustainable development is not a programmatic objective but an immediate legal duty. Therefore, States are required to adopt deliberate, specific, and adequately funded measures aimed at eradicating poverty, reducing structural inequalities, and strengthening both social and ecological resilience. 81 This obligation entails the harmonization of domestic legal frameworks with international environmental and human rights commitments, accompanied by coherent public policies, budgetary instruments, and judicial mechanisms that guarantee the effectiveness of the rights to a healthy environment and a stable climate for the benefit of present and future generations.
In line with the principle of non-regression, the IACtHR establishes that once environmental or social protection standards have been achieved, States cannot weaken them without compelling and objective justification. Similarly, it emphasizes the principle of equity, requiring that the transition toward low-carbon economies and sustainable development must not reproduce existing patterns of inequality, marginalization, or environmental injustice. 82 Finally, the IACtHR interprets the obligation of progressivity as encompassing not only the gradual enhancement of legal and institutional frameworks but also the effective implementation of climate policies that align economic growth with the protection of human rights and Nature. Sustainable development, in this sense, becomes a bridge between social justice and ecological integrity, central to the construction of what the Court calls “an inter-American ecological constitutionalism”. 83
Nature as a Subject of Rights: Toward an Ecocentric Paradigm
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 marks a paradigmatic shift in international human rights law by recognizing Nature and its components—ecosystems, rivers, forests, and biomes—as subjects of rights, endowed with legal dignity and intrinsic value. 84 This recognition, adopted by a narrow majority of four votes to three, continues the line of reasoning initiated in the AO (OC-23/17), based on the idea of a profound transformation from the traditional anthropocentric framework toward an ecocentric approach that conceives Nature as an autonomous rights-holder against environmental degradation. 85 Through this approach, Nature is granted legal visibility, enabling the Court to reinterpret legal institutions, norms, and principles from an intercultural perspective grounded in legal pluralism.
According to the IACtHR, the impacts of climate change not only generate direct consequences for humankind but also deeply affect the cycles, processes, and life forms that compose Nature. 86 The climate crisis thus reveals the interconnectedness and interdependence between humans and Nature, as highlighted by 2022 IPBES. 87 The guarantee of the right to a stable and healthy climate therefore requires protecting the ecological integrity of the planet and recognizing that humanity is part of an interconnected biological web, not a separate entity. 88
Safeguarding the climate system, therefore, entails protecting the integrity of ecosystems and the biotic and abiotic elements that sustain and balance them. The reciprocal relationship between climate stability and ecological equilibrium underscores the urgency of adopting a coherent legal framework that integrates the pro persona and pro natura principles, ensuring a harmonious interpretation that recognizes both human rights and the rights of Nature. 89 As the IACtHR itself states, “the recognition of Nature as a subject of rights does not introduce an alien concept into the Inter-American human rights system, but rather represents a contemporary expression of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment”. 90 This approach implies recognizing the coexistence of multiple cultural and normative conceptions of Nature, linked to the biocultural relationships that peoples and communities maintain with their territories. Consequently, the Court stresses the need for intercultural and pluralistic legal frameworks that articulate Indigenous, peasant, and scientific knowledge in environmental protection. 91
Moreover, the IACtHR affirms that recognizing Nature as a subject of rights generates positive obligations for States, including the restoration of degraded ecosystems, the protection of watersheds, and the preservation of biome functionality, in accordance with the best available science and with traditional and Indigenous knowledge, which offer a holistic understanding of the human–environment relationship. 92 This requires incorporating the ecological variable into decision-making processes, for instance, in water management or the granting of extractive licenses—and adopting a duty of restoration and non-regression when ecological balance is compromised. As the Court explains, “this approach strengthens a paradigm centered on the protection of the ecological conditions essential for life and empowers local communities and Indigenous peoples, who have historically been the guardians of ecosystems and hold deep traditional knowledge about their functioning”. 93 Accordingly, States are obliged to protect Nature not solely for its utility or instrumental value to humans, but for its intrinsic importance to all living beings that share the planet.
This approach draws inspiration from several sources. First, the Latin American tradition of ecological constitutionalism, rooted in the Constitutions of Ecuador (2008) and Bolivia (2009), which enshrine Pachamama or Mother Earth as a source of life and establish State obligations of respect and ecological restoration. 94 Likewise, Colombian jurisprudence has played a decisive role, through landmark cases such as Judgment T-622/16, where the Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as a rights-bearing entity, and Judgment STC 4360/18, which extended this recognition to the Colombian Amazon. 95 These rulings consolidate an ecological constitutionalism that imposes biophysical limits on development and promotes a governance model based on the interdependence between humans and Nature. The Inter-American Court incorporates this regional legal legacy, positioning the Inter-American System as a global normative laboratory for environmental, climate, and ecological justice. 96
A second factor is the influence of biocultural rights, which highlight the historical role of local and Indigenous communities as the traditional custodians of ecosystems and bearers of ecological knowledge and a reciprocal ethic toward the Earth. 97 A third, more pragmatic factor lies in the Court's reasoning that advancing toward a paradigm recognizing the rights of ecosystems “provides coherent and effective legal tools to confront the triple planetary crisis and to prevent existential harm before it becomes irreversible”. 98
Nonetheless, Judges Hernández López, Sierra Porto, and Pérez Goldberg dissented from this position, arguing that the notion of Nature as a subject of rights remains incipient, imprecise, and non-uniform, particularly from scientific and cultural perspectives, where the term “nature” lacks systematic definition. 99 They further contended that the Court lacks authority to declare Nature a rights-bearing entity without explicit treaty reform, as doing so would exceed its consultative powers, alter the structure of the Inter-American system, infringe on State sovereignty and democratic principles, and introduce an ontological rather than merely interpretive change. According to these judges, Nature lacks institutional structures for legal representation within the Inter-American System, raising issues of legitimacy, representation, and reparations. Proposed solutions—such as guardians or defenders of Nature—remain unregulated and lack institutional mechanisms to resolve potential conflicts between human rights and the rights of Nature. 100 Consequently, they consider such recognition legally unsustainable within the Inter-American framework, given the absence of normative, procedural, and philosophical foundations, and the risk of creating abstract rights without effective enforcement mechanisms. Nevertheless, they recognize that Nature must indeed be protected, though through existing tools such as the right to a healthy environment, the Escazú Agreement, and public interest actions, within the conventional anthropocentric framework. 101
Despite these reservations, IACtHR AO propels the transition toward a sustainable and relational model of development, one that limits human activities within the planet's ecological boundaries and promotes a balance between human well-being and ecosystem health. 102 This ecocentric, democratic, and decolonial approach advances a relational vision of law grounded in reciprocity, interdependence, and complementarity among all living beings. 103
Accordingly, the recognition of Nature as a subject of rights strengthens the corpus iuris of the Inter-American System and reinforces its coherence with the principles of progressivity (Article 26, ACHR) and the adoption of domestic measures (Article 2, Protocol of San Salvador). This approach broadens the scope of State obligations by integrating core principles of international environmental law—precaution, prevention, and intergenerational equity—aimed at safeguarding the ecological integrity of ecosystems against present and future threats. 104
The IACtHR AO thus consolidates a progressive normative development that strengthens the long-term protection of ecosystem integrity and functionality, offering effective legal tools to address the triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—and to prevent irreversible harm to life on Earth. 105 According to the IACtHR, this recognition embodies a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment, reflecting a global trend toward an ecocentric legal model that seeks to balance the protection of humans and Nature alike. 106
In this sense, the protection of the right to a healthy environment, broadly understood to include Nature itself, necessarily enhances the realization of substantive human rights such as life, health, and food. 107 The Court underscores that this paradigm not only safeguards the ecological conditions essential for life but also empowers local communities and Indigenous peoples, who have historically served as stewards of ecosystems and holders of traditional knowledge essential to their preservation. 108
Finally, the IACtHR AO reaffirms that the ecocentric paradigm is fully compatible with the principle of progressivity and with the general obligation to adopt domestic measures to strengthen the protection of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights (Article 26, ACHR; Article 2, Protocol of San Salvador). This ensures the harmonization of the pro homine and pro natura principles, recognizing their complementarity as cornerstones of a unified protection system. This approach reflects the evolution of international environmental law by integrating the principles of precaution, prevention, and intergenerational equity as foundations of a comprehensive environmental law aimed at protecting ecosystems from current and future risks. 109
Ultimately, this conception overcomes the false dichotomy between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism, proposing instead a relational understanding of law based on reciprocity, interdependence, and the indivisibility of rights. The Court thus recognizes that the right to a healthy climate does not belong exclusively to human beings, but also to ecosystems and other components of Nature, consolidating a holistic understanding of the right to life and of planetary balance. 110
Environmental Jus Cogens
In a declaration of profound normative significance, the IACtHR establishes that the prohibition against causing massive or irreversible environmental harm constitutes a jus cogens norm—comparable in hierarchy to the prohibitions of torture, slavery, or genocide. 111 This marks a new milestone in regional jurisprudence, as the Court asserts that “[t]he prohibitions derived from the obligation to preserve our common ecosystem, as a precondition for the enjoyment of other rights […] are of such transcendence that they cannot admit agreement to the contrary, and therefore possess the character of jus cogens”. 112
In this way, the integrity of the climate system is elevated to the status of a non-derogable global legal good, the protection of which constitutes an erga omnes duty binding on all States. 113 This is grounded primarily in the principle of effectiveness, and in the recognition that it crystallizes a collective and essential interest of humankind—one that is not merely desirable, but necessary. 114
Accordingly, the IACtHR observes that States “have established a consensus on existential risks and identified specific human behaviors that may irreversibly affect the interdependence and vital balance of the common ecosystem”. 115 These anthropogenic activities include large-scale deforestation of primary forests, widespread destruction of biodiversity, persistent large-scale pollution of vital resources, extensive radioactive contamination, and the irreversible alteration of natural biogeochemical cycles such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Each of these “threatens the essential conditions for life on Earth”. 116
Furthermore, the IACtHR stresses that “preserving the vital balance of the ecosystem—which makes life for all species, including our own, possible on the planet—constitutes a sine qua non condition for the validity of all human rights recognized under international law, particularly the rights to life, integrity, health, and non-discrimination”. 117 This implies that the duty to protect the climate system may, in exceptional circumstances, prevail even over individual rights, given its peremptory status.
From a strictly legal standpoint, this obligation is based on general principles of law, notably the principle of effectiveness, which demands that international norms be interpreted in a manner that ensures their protective purpose. Consequently, the prohibition of acts that irreversibly threaten the global ecological balance must be understood as a binding international obligation of an imperative nature, derived from universal values essential to collective survival. Although the IACtHR avoids explicitly referring to the concept of “ecocide”, 118 it acknowledges “ongoing efforts to criminalize at the national and international levels conduct that causes massive and long-lasting damage to our ecosystems”. 119
The obligations arising from this pronouncement could, therefore, encourage States to criminalize ecocide domestically and to support its recognition as the fifth core crime under the jurisdiction of the ICC. 120 Similarly, the ICJ has reaffirmed that States bear an international obligation to adopt effective measures against climate change, noting that climate inaction—namely, the failure to implement adequate mitigation and adaptation measures—may constitute an internationally wrongful act. 121
Thus, the jus cogens character entails both a negative obligation not to inflict irreversible harm upon the interdependence and vital balance of the common ecosystem, and a positive obligation to adopt timely preventive measures ensuring the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems. These measures must align with the best available science and integrate the knowledge of traditional, local, and Indigenous communities.
The Court further emphasizes that States must refrain from regressive actions, interpreting the duty to preserve ecological balance as an imperative international obligation—that is, one that admits neither derogation nor exception. Such obligations are binding on all States and subjects of international law, requiring cooperation among nations, regardless of their level of development or geographic position, to eradicate practices that undermine the planet's ecological integrity.
In addition, the Court adopts a framework of equitable responsibility, grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), adapted to the Inter-American context. 122 Originating in the 1992 UNFCCC, this principle mandates consideration of both historical emissions and current capacities for mitigation and adaptation, thereby ensuring a fair distribution of the climate burden.
The IACtHR also extends this erga omnes obligation to private actors and transnational corporations, who are bound by a heightened duty of due diligence. Although States retain the primary responsibility for establishing standards and oversight mechanisms, the development of effective accountability mechanisms for large-scale environmental and climate harm remains pending.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Gómez highlights that “nothing prevents the international community from advancing toward explicit recognition of a prohibition on conduct causing irreversible environmental damage from a global perspective—one that admits no agreement to the contrary. Given the existential dimension of the climate crisis and the irreversible harm that anthropogenic activities may cause, this prohibition becomes a conditio sine qua non for the validity of other fundamental rights of both persons and Nature”. 123
Nevertheless, the Court was not unanimous on this matter. Judge Pérez Goldberg dissented, arguing that the recognition of the prohibition against massive or irreversible environmental harm as a jus cogens norm lacks sufficient legal foundation and conflates the progressive development of environmental law with the existence of a peremptory norm. Drawing on Article 53 of the 1969 VCLT and the conclusions of the ILC, she recalled that two cumulative criteria must be satisfied: (i) the norm must be one of general international law, and (ii) it must be accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as non-derogable. In her view, such consensus does not yet exist. State practice, treaty law, and international jurisprudence do not reflect universal or qualified recognition sufficient to justify this hierarchy. 124
She also notes that the IACtHR itself, in Residents of La Oroya v. Peru, 125 acknowledged that such consolidation might occur “in the future,” suggesting that insufficient developments have occurred within two years to alter the normative status. Moreover, she criticizes the Court's invocation of the principle of effectiveness to justify the jus cogens hierarchy, asserting that while the principle ensures effective application of law, it cannot create new normative categories absent empirical or customary support. Employing it in such a way, she warns, distorts the system of sources and hierarchies in international law, undermining legal certainty.
Judge Pérez Goldberg further rejects the notion of a regional jus cogens, arguing that the recognition of peremptory norms must emanate from the international community as a whole, not from regional legal systems alone. She underscores the duty to provide reasoning, emphasizing that the Court must rigorously substantiate its claims, especially when introducing far-reaching normative innovations. In her opinion, IACtHR AO does not provide sufficient legal or empirical justification to affirm the existence of an environmental jus cogens, thereby weakening the legitimacy of its reasoning. 126
Nevertheless, the IACtHR AO articulates an ecocentric doctrine of international human rights law, wherein the preservation of planetary ecological balance ceases to be a discretionary policy and becomes an imperative legal obligation—a foundational element for the very existence of a jus cogens applicable to both humanity and Nature. 127 The Court's reasoning follows a coherent trajectory, consistent with its prior IACtHR AO (OC-23/17), which identified minimum obligations States must adopt to prevent human rights violations arising from environmental harm: (i) regulatory duties; (ii) supervision and oversight; (iii) environmental impact assessment; (iv) contingency planning; and (v) mitigation of environmental damage. 128
This position also aligns with the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, which recognized that “the existence of a general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause environmental harm to other States or areas beyond national jurisdiction forms part of the corpus of international environmental law”. 129 The ICJ reaffirmed this in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), paragraph 101, establishing that States have a duty of due diligence to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm, including conducting environmental impact assessments where transboundary effects are possible. 130 Similarly, in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), the Court reiterated the obligation to conduct such assessments as a component of customary international law. 131
Considering these precedents, the Inter-American Court's pronouncement represents a further step in the normative evolution of international law, helping redefine—or rather clarify—the rules of interpretation that perhaps should have always prevailed. What was once viewed as discretionary or soft law now assumes an unequivocally peremptory character.
Climate Emergency: Enforceability of the Right to a Healthy Environment
As observed thus far, the substantive obligations established by the IACtHR in Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 consolidate a new inter-American legal paradigm, in which the right to a healthy climate and the rights of Nature are integrated into a single normative axis: that of shared responsibility for planetary habitability. Moreover, the Court incorporates State obligations concerning economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights within the context of the climate emergency. In this regard, the Court affirms that, under the general obligation to ensure the progressive development of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, States must allocate the maximum available resources to protect individuals and groups who, due to situations of vulnerability, are exposed to the most severe impacts of climate change. 132
The IACtHR further establishes a general obligation for States to adopt domestic legal provisions ensuring that their internal legal frameworks incorporate the necessary regulation to respect, guarantee, and progressively realize human rights within the context of the climate emergency. 133 This, in turn, implies the obligation of States to cooperate in good faith to advance the respect, protection, and progressive realization of human rights threatened or affected by the climate emergency. 134
In particular, with respect to the right to a healthy environment, the IACtHR holds that States must (i) protect Nature and its components from the impacts of climate change, and (ii) establish a strategy aimed at advancing toward sustainable development. 135 Regarding other economic, social, and cultural rights, the Court affirms the general obligation to ensure their progressive realization, which entails that States must allocate the maximum available resources to protect persons and groups in vulnerable situations from the impacts of climate change.
In this context, the IACtHR notes that, by virtue of the rights to life, personal integrity, health, private and family life, property and housing, freedom of residence and movement, water and food, work and social security, culture and education—as well as all other substantive rights threatened by climate impacts—States have an immediate enforceable obligation to define and periodically update, in accordance with the highest possible ambition, their national adaptation targets and plans. 136 This also entails a duty to act with heightened due diligence in fulfilling their specific obligations. According to the Court, this mandate is grounded in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which “protects those rights derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural norms contained in the Charter of the OAS. Thus, this provision has operated as the conventional foundation for the rights to health, work, culture, water, housing, food, education, and the enjoyment of a healthy environment.” 137
This contribution by the IACtHR is, however, contested by Judge Pérez Goldberg in her partially dissenting opinion. The Judge argues that Article 26 of the ACHR should not be interpreted as a basis for the direct justiciability of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, nor as a foundation for imposing specific obligations upon States. 138 In her view, the interpretation of these rights must be carried out within the limits of the existing normative framework, resorting instead to Article 11 of the Protocol of San Salvador, which expressly recognizes the right to a healthy environment and falls within the Court's full interpretative competence. 139
Furthermore, Judge Pérez Goldberg dissents from the majority's recognition of an autonomous right to a healthy climate, considering that it represents an unnecessary extension of the right to a healthy environment. In her opinion, the acknowledgment of this new right—conceived to protect both humanity and nature—introduces specific State obligations (such as defining mitigation targets, regulating corporate activities, or conducting climate impact assessments) without sufficient normative grounding within the Inter-American System. 140
Procedural Obligations
In alignment with the standards set forth by the Escazú Agreement, 141 the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) reaffirms the principles of environmental democracy by guaranteeing procedural environmental rights: access to information, public participation, and access to justice in climate-related matters. 142 These rights are recognized as essential pillars of the democratic rule of law, ensuring the protection of human rights in the face of the climate emergency, strengthening the effectiveness of public action, and promoting open and inclusive citizen participation. 143
Likewise, these rights—also enshrined in Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 144 —guarantee transparency, accountability, and democratic participation in decision-making processes affecting the climate and the environment. 145 In this regard, the Court considers that ensuring procedural rights constitutes an indispensable condition for addressing the climate crisis and guiding state decision-making toward sustainability.
In its previous AO (OC-23/17), the IACtHR had already identified the rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice as procedural environmental rights. However, in OC-32/25, the Court broadens their scope by incorporating additional emerging rights, such as the right to science and the recognition of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, as well as the right to defend human rights. 146 Through this expansion, the Tribunal promotes broader and more effective citizen participation in climate responses, fostering environmental education, participatory dialogue mechanisms at all stages of planning, environmental audits, and the development of instruments that integrate “the interests of Nature and of future generations”. 147
The IACtHR also emphasizes the importance of environmental education, scientific cooperation, and the preservation of traditional and Indigenous knowledge as fundamental pillars for adaptation, ecosystem conservation, and a just ecological transition. 148 With respect to the right of access to information, States are held responsible for: (i) the production of climate information; 149 (ii) the disclosure of information relevant to the protection of human rights in the context of climate change; 150 and (iii) the adoption of measures to counter misinformation. 151
A particularly innovative feature of IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) lies in its explicit recognition of the right to science as an essential component of States’ procedural obligations. In this sense, the Court recognizes the right to the best available science for climate action, encompassing not only contemporary scientific knowledge but also local, traditional, and Indigenous epistemologies, 152 pursuant to Articles 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14.2 of the Protocol of San Salvador. 153 The IACtHR underscores that States must ensure broad, timely, and intelligible access to climate-related information, including scientific data, risk assessments, emission inventories, and environmental impact studies. This obligation extends to information concerning mitigation and adaptation policies, climate budgets, and mechanisms of international cooperation, recognizing that information asymmetry is one of the primary barriers to the effective exercise of environmental rights. 154
Furthermore, the IACtHR stresses that States are obligated to facilitate access to reliable, up-to-date, and verifiable scientific information, while simultaneously promoting meaningful participation by local, scientific, and Indigenous communities in climate decision-making processes. 155 This approach acknowledges that the articulation between scientific and traditional knowledge forms an indispensable epistemic foundation for designing and implementing effective mitigation and adaptation policies. 156 Regarding the right to political participation, States must guarantee processes that ensure meaningful involvement of individuals under their jurisdiction in decision-making and policy formation concerning climate change, as well as ensure prior consultation with Indigenous and tribal peoples, when applicable. 157
Access to justice must be ensured so that States provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations. 158 The IACtHR thus expands locus standi in environmental matters, establishing that victims of climate impacts may access justice even when the damage occurs outside the territory of the responsible State, provided there exists a sufficient causal connection or significant contribution to the global harm. 159 This interpretation responds to the transboundary and collective nature of the climate crisis, transcending the traditional territorial limits of international law. 160
The IACtHR also reaffirms States’ obligation to guarantee effective access to environmental and climate justice, which entails removing procedural barriers, reducing litigation costs, and strengthening the independence of judicial and administrative authorities. 161 In this context, it incorporates the pro persona principle, ensuring that norms and procedures are interpreted in the manner most favorable to the protection of both individuals and Nature. 162 Regarding reparation, the IACtHR expands the concept of integral reparation to encompass climate-related harm, requiring that reparations be contextualized, proportionate, and culturally appropriate. 163 Such measures may include restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition, alongside actions for ecological restoration and community capacity-building. This approach recognizes that climate-related damage often entails cumulative, prolonged, and irreversible effects that cannot always be compensated monetarily. 164
As analyzed in subsequent sections, the IACtHR also includes the right to defend human rights as a procedural right, under which States bear a special duty to protect environmental defenders. This entails concrete obligations to safeguard, investigate, and, where appropriate, sanction acts of violence, threats, or intimidation against them, as well as to counteract the “criminalization” of environmental defense. 165 Regarding all these procedural obligations, Judge Verónica Gómez, in her concurring opinion, emphasizes that procedural rights—such as access to information, public participation, and access to justice—are not merely complementary but rather constitute structural components of substantive obligations. Without adequate procedures, duties related to mitigation, adaptation, and reparation would lose their effectiveness. 166 This interpretation strengthens the legal consideration of so-called environmental procedural rights, including, notably, the right to defend the environment.
Specific Obligations: Protection of Vulnerable Groups
In its third major thematic axis, IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) explicitly introduces an intersectional and structural discrimination perspective in interpreting State obligations in the face of the climate emergency. The Court recognizes that the effects of climate change are not neutral nor do they affect all individuals equally; on the contrary, its impacts deepen pre-existing inequalities and aggravate conditions of social, economic, cultural, and environmental vulnerability. 167 This recognition marks a significant jurisprudential advance toward a conception of climate change as a phenomenon that reproduces and amplifies historical injustices, particularly in regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean, where structural inequality and dependence on extractive economies intensify exposure to climate risk. 168
Thus, the IACtHR makes visible the differentiated and disproportionate effects of the climate crisis on certain historically marginalized groups and on collectives whose specific situations expose them to new risks. 169 In particular, it refers to children and adolescents, women, persons with disabilities, older persons, Indigenous peoples, and rural, tribal, Afro-descendant, peasant, and fishing communities. 170 Therefore, States must adopt affirmative action and strengthened protection measures, ensuring that climate policies integrate approaches based on equity, participation, and social inclusion. Accordingly, the IACtHR urges States to adopt differentiated, reasonable, and proportionate measures that ensure the effective protection of the substantive and procedural rights of these groups, under the principle of substantive equality and non-discrimination. 171 It also establishes that States must adopt measures to protect persons who do not belong to traditionally protected categories but find themselves in situations of vulnerability due to dynamic or contextual factors. 172
Moreover, the IACtHR highlights the need to ensure the effective and representative participation of children and adolescents in climate-related decision-making, recognizing their evolving capacities and their status as rights holders in the present, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and General Comment No. 26 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023) on children's rights and the environment. 173 This emphasis expands the generational dimension of climate rights, linking it to the principle of intergenerational justice. 174 The Court also broadens the traditional spectrum of vulnerable groups recognized by the Inter-American system, noting that the climate emergency generates new categories of vulnerability. 175 Among these, it mentions people living in coastal areas threatened by sea-level rise, persons deprived of liberty, workers in sectors affected by the transition to low-carbon economies, and young people facing unemployment or labor informality. 176 This adaptive approach reveals an evolutionary interpretation of human rights that seeks to incorporate emerging socio-environmental realities and avoid reproducing historical exclusions. 177
A significant doctrinal contribution is the IACtHR's application of the concept of multidimensional poverty to the climate context. 178 This approach, inspired by the works of Sen and Nussbaum, 179 understands that climate vulnerability is not limited to a lack of income but encompasses deprivations in access to water, food, housing, health, energy, and education. Therefore, the Court requires States to design public policies and climate strategies that ensure the provision of essential goods and services for a dignified life and that reduce structural disadvantages in the face of climate impacts. 180
According to this intersectional approach, States must identify the most vulnerable populations and ensure that ecological transition measures do not worsen their situation but become opportunities for social and economic inclusion. Climate policies must be socially and culturally sensitive, taking into account historical, gender, ethnic, and territorial differences in exposure to risk, consistent with the principles of equity, participation, and non-regressivity. 181 The effective and representative participation of these groups in the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of climate policies must be guaranteed, ensuring mechanisms for free, prior, and informed consultation in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 182
The IACtHR underscores that mitigation and adaptation policies must not reproduce or exacerbate existing inequalities but should promote social justice, gender equality, and sustainability. 183 In this regard, it orders the adoption of differentiated measures to protect food security, health, access to water, and the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, as well as empowerment and climate education programs for women and youth. 184
The Court also establishes a direct link between intersectional obligations and the protection of environmental defenders, who face heightened risks due to their role in defending ecosystems. 185 The Court requires States to ensure safe and violence-free environments for these actors, recognizing their fundamental role in environmental oversight and in defending the right to a healthy climate. 186
Regarding environmental defense, the IACtHR affirms that it constitutes a legitimate and essential form of exercising human rights, directly derived from the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, and participation in public affairs. 187 The Court stresses that environmental defenders face specific and aggravated risks due to the nature of their work, particularly in contexts marked by socio-environmental conflicts, extractive interests, or institutional weakness. 188 In this sense, the right to defend environmental human rights entails a positive State obligation to protect, respect, and guarantee the rights of those who promote the protection of Nature and ecosystems, as well as a negative obligation to refrain from obstructing, stigmatizing, or criminalizing their work. 189 Consequently, States must adopt a heightened duty of due diligence regarding acts of violence, harassment, or intimidation, ensuring prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation of such acts and the effective punishment of those responsible. 190
Among the structural protection measures identified by the Court are: the collection and systematization of updated information on attacks and crimes against environmental defenders; the implementation of comprehensive public policies addressing the structural causes of violence, including corruption, impunity, and the concentration of economic power; the establishment or strengthening of national protection mechanisms with sufficient resources, institutional independence, and direct participation of beneficiaries; and the guarantee of meaningful participation of defenders in risk assessment and the design of protection measures, consistent with the principles of autonomy, informed consent, and differential approach. 191
The IACtHR further warns that the criminalization of environmental defense—through abusive judicial processes, misuse of criminal law, or strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)—constitutes a violation of the rights to freedom of expression and democratic participation. 192 States, therefore, have the duty to prevent, investigate, and punish such practices, whether perpetrated by public authorities or private actors with economic or political power. 193 In sum, the procedural and intersectional obligations established by the Court consolidate an integrated framework of climate justice and human rights, in which participation, transparency, equity, and inclusion emerge as indispensable conditions for the effectiveness of climate action within the Inter-American system.
Impact and Relevance of IACtHR AO
The IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) represents a major legal milestone in addressing the climate crisis from a human rights perspective. It provides an indispensable roadmap for a just, equitable, participatory, and democratic climate action both in Latin America and globally. 194 Undoubtedly, it constitutes a turning point in the contemporary evolution of international human rights law and international environmental law. Its primary significance lies in placing the protection of human rights against extraordinary risks, such as the climate emergency, at the center of the global legal debate. The Court deliberately adopts the expression “climate emergency” to capture the gravity and urgency of the phenomenon, grounding its reasoning in robust scientific evidence and expressly citing the most recent IPCC reports as well as testimonies from affected communities collected during the public hearings. 195 Moreover, the IACtHR effectively conveys the magnitude of the climate challenge: preserving Nature, protecting vulnerable populations, and guaranteeing the rights of future generations while ensuring sustainable development opportunities for those living today. In this sense, the notion of “progressive development” contained in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights appears to have been overtaken by the urgency of the climate crisis.
The IACtHR sets forth demanding parameters that impose active and sustained obligations on States, fostering global cooperation for climate protection. This requirement is particularly relevant in the Latin American context, where the climate crisis exacerbates structural inequalities and undermines fundamental rights, especially in regions such as the Amazon, the Caribbean islands, and the coastal zones of Central America. In response, the Court reaffirms States’ obligation to act with heightened due diligence, ensuring public policies grounded in responsibility, transparency, and international cooperation. 196
Thus, the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) redefines the climate emergency not merely as an environmental challenge, but as a systemic threat to human rights and democratic stability. 197 The Court establishes State responsibility for the protection of a wide range of substantive rights — including the rights to life, health, personal integrity, water, food, work, social security, culture, and education — in addition to the right to a healthy environment and the autonomous right to a stable and safe climate. Simultaneously, it expands the scope of procedural obligations by recognizing the duty of States to guarantee public participation, access to information, and environmental justice. 198 From a scientific standpoint, the Court warns — citing the IPCC 199 — that if current trends continue, there is a 66% probability that the average global temperature will increase by 3.1°C by the end of the twenty-first century, and a 10% probability that it will exceed 3.6°C, with catastrophic consequences for ecosystems and the most vulnerable human populations. In light of this, it calls on States to strengthen socioecological resilience — understood as the capacity of communities and natural systems to withstand, adapt to, and recover from climatic disturbances — in order to ensure the continuity of human rights and sustainable development. 200
Ultimately, the IACtHR AO consolidates the legitimacy of Latin American legal ecologism and projects its influence on a global scale. Latin America thus ceases to be a mere recipient of international norms and becomes a producer of legal innovations — such as the recognition of the rights of Nature and the human right to a healthy climate — that are reshaping the foundations of contemporary international law. 201
The IACtHR AOs lack binding force in the strict sense. Still, their interpretative authority exerts profound normative influence by guiding State obligations and reinforcing the domestic control of conventionality. 202 In this regard, the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) possesses exceptional persuasive value, capable of inspiring constitutional, legislative, and jurisprudential reforms among OAS member States by establishing common standards for climate justice, intergenerational equity, and the rights of Nature. 203 It may also inform the development of public policies, advocacy strategies, litigation, and human rights protection efforts within the broader framework of the global climate emergency. Although Judge Gómez concurred with the Opinion, 204 she cautioned about the challenges of implementation, particularly the gap between the Court's interpretative authority and States’ actual compliance; the need for enforcement, monitoring, and follow-up mechanisms to prevent the obligations from remaining merely rhetorical; and the urgency of integrating local, national, and regional governance frameworks into the new climate legal paradigm.
Despite these concerns, the practical and immediate influence of IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) became evident only days after its publication. On July 21, 2025, the Administrative Tribunal of Santander (Colombia) upheld an action for the protection of collective rights and interests filed by the Municipality of Bucaramanga against the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA), recognizing the Páramo de Santurbán as a subject of rights. This decision represents the first direct judicial application of the Advisory Opinion at the national level. 205
In its ruling, the Tribunal explicitly cited IACtHR AO (OC-32/25), ordering the suspension of existing environmental licenses, the formulation of a reinforced ecosystem protection plan, and the creation of an expanded ecological governance system with binding participation from local communities, territorial authorities, and scientific experts. 206 This judicial interpretation recognizes that granting Nature's components the status of rights-bearing subjects constitutes a normative and hermeneutic development of the right to a healthy environment, inspired by the emerging standards of the Inter-American Human Rights System.
The Tribunal further emphasized that this evolution strengthens Latin American environmental constitutionalism by promoting an integrated and ecocentric vision that articulates the principles of interdependence, intergenerational justice, environmental ethics, and shared responsibility in the face of ecological collapse. 207 It also affirmed that the ontological dignity of Nature and its status as a collective subject of public interest serve as essential normative foundations for transforming law into a dynamic social practice, continually reinterpreted and adapted to contemporary environmental challenges. 208 In this way, the ruling of the Administrative Tribunal of Santander not only harmonizes the national constitutional framework with Inter-American standards but also contributes to redefining environmental justice across multiple scales — local, regional, and global — consolidating a judicial trend that projects the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) as a de facto binding normative instrument for strengthening Latin American eco-constitutionalism. 209 It seems, this IACtHR AO will open new contentious avenues before domestic and international courts, offering the Inter-American Court the opportunity to demonstrate whether human rights law can effectively adapt to these new demands. 210
ITLOS, ICJ, and the IACtHR AOs: A Brief Comparison
The IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) is part of a broader global jurisprudential movement aimed at clarifying States’ international obligations in relation to climate change. As previously noted, the 2024 ITLOS AO determined that States have a duty to prevent marine pollution arising from greenhouse gas emissions and to cooperate internationally to protect the marine environment. 211 Subsequently, in 2025, the ICJ AO, concluded that the lack of effective action against climate change constitutes a violation of general international law, engaging the international responsibility of States and requiring equitable global cooperation and effective mitigation measures. 212
Together with IACtHR AO (OC-32/25), these ICTs 213 have become a powerful common legal strategy: on the one hand, to strengthen climate action, and on the other, to facilitate litigation and establish the normative foundations for a future system of redress. 214 However, the Inter-American Court distinguishes itself from these other international bodies by integrating a biocentric vision that recognizes Nature as a subject of rights, an unprecedented legal development at the international level. 215 Whereas ITLOS focuses on the protection of the marine environment and the ICJ on universal obligations of prevention and cooperation, the Inter-American Court combines the human rights approach with legal ecologism, consolidating the Americas as a normative laboratory for ecological justice. 216 Despite their differences, the AO of the three ICTs converge on a common principle: the interdependence between environmental protection and human rights, and the urgency of coordinated, fair, and solidarity-based climate action. 217 They also share similar contextual limitations, most notably an international political scenario marked by the crisis of multilateralism, the decline of cooperation and accountability, the proliferation of denialist discourses challenging the climate emergency, and the merely consultative nature of all these judicial opinions. 218
Conclusion
The IACtHT AO (OC-32/25) represents a legal, doctrinal, and ethical milestone in the evolution of contemporary international law.
219
For the first time, one of the ICTs have sought to integrate human rights, the rights of Nature, and climate justice within a common legal framework, establishing a new ecocentric paradigm in the interpretation of the Inter-American law.
220
As a result, the IACtHR AO redefines climate action as a legal obligation derived from human rights, rather than as a mere political option. Consequently, States must respect, guarantee, and adapt their domestic legal frameworks to protect the autonomous right to a stable and healthy climate. The Court emphasizes that inaction in the face of the climate crisis constitutes a direct violation of human rights, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups and future generations.
221
Among the core obligations, derived from the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25), can be listed as follows:
Adopt concrete, evidence-based measures aimed at the progressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, promoting a just transition toward renewable and sustainable energy sources. Prevent and mitigate the impacts of climate change through adaptation strategies tailored to the specific ecological and social vulnerabilities of each territory. Ensure the meaningful participation of the most affected communities in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of climate policies, in accordance with the principle of environmental justice. Guarantee accountability and access to climate justice through effective judicial and administrative mechanisms to ensure implementation of measures and redress for harm caused by State inaction.
Furthermore, the IACtHR has introduced an obligation to regulate corporate conduct under an enhanced due diligence standard, applicable to entire value chains, and explicitly prohibits greenwashing and manipulation of regulatory processes.
222
This standard, together with the obligation to prevent irreversible harm, consolidates an unprecedented Inter-American normative corpus on climate responsibility. Thus, from a dogmatic perspective, the main legal conclusions of the IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) can be synthesized as follows:
Recognition of the global climate emergency as a legal fact requiring immediate, coordinated, and human rights–based action. Acknowledgment of the human right to a healthy environment and a stable climate, with individual, collective, and intergenerational scope. Imposition of positive obligations on States to mitigate emissions, regulate corporate activity, and protect essential ecosystems. Recognition of Nature as a subject of rights, endowed with dignity and intrinsic value beyond its utility to human beings. Classification of irreversible damage to the climate and Nature as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) within emerging international law.
223
The IACtHR AO (OC-32/25) thus consolidates a new Inter-American ecological constitutionalism, placing climate, Nature, and human rights at the canter of a unified legal framework. As Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, noted, this decision marks a before and after in the legal protection of the climate by situating human rights as the structural axis of environmental and climate policies.
224
As she expressed: “The road ahead remains steep. But today's Advisory Opinion gives legal wings to countless efforts already under way — and to many more to come. We now walk forward not just with moral clarity, but with judicial affirmation… This is a day for the history books. And a day for renewed resolve.”
225
Footnotes
Aknowledgement
This work has been carried out within the framework of the research project “Making peace with nature and making nature the key to peace” (PaxNatura), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ref.: PID2022–1424842022/ PID2022-142484NB-C21)”; and within the Universitat Rovira i Virgili research group ‘Territory, Citizenship and Sustainability’, recognised as a consolidated research group and supported by the Department of Research and Universities of the Generalitat de Catalunya (2021 SGR 00162)
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.