On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("Court") issued its Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 ("Opinion"), setting out the specific obligations of states to address the climate crisis from a human rights perspective. An unofficial English translation of the Opinion can be consulted here. While the Court's jurisdiction is to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights ("Convention") and the Protocol of San Salvador, this landmark Opinion nonetheless marks a historic milestone that could reshape climate legislation and jurisprudence worldwide.
The Opinion sets a new standard in the context of climate crisis-related rights. The Court unanimously recognized that the world is facing a climate emergency driven by human activity that demands urgent and rights-based action. The Court also affirmed that states must (i) respect and protect human rights in this context, (ii) act with heightened due diligence to safeguard vulnerable populations, (iii) incorporate climate obligations into domestic law, (iv) cooperate internationally while protecting nature and democratic institutions, and (v) address the inequalities caused by the climate crisis.
The Court's findings by majority – although not unanimous – are also significant. These include the findings: (i) requiring states to allocate the maximum available resources to protect the most vulnerable populations; (ii) recognizing Nature as a rights-holder; (iii) treating irreversible environmental harm as a jus cogens rule (a peremptory norm of international law – non-derogable and universally binding); and (iv) affirming the right to a healthy climate, which obliges states to adopt ambitious mitigation and adaptation plans, regulate corporate conduct, and ensure access to justice.
We discuss below the main takeaways of the Opinion. In particular, we set out the significant implications for private actors, as well as for states.
Background
The Opinion was issued in response to a joint request made in January 2023 by the governments of Chile and Colombia (see our previous post here). Public hearings were held in Barbados (in April 2024) and Brazil (in May 2024), drawing unprecedented participation. In total, the Court received 263 written submissions from 613 contributors around the world, including states, international organizations, governmental bodies, communities, civil society organizations, academic institutions, a company, and numerous individuals.
The Opinion is part of a broader wave of legal developments worldwide seeking to address the climate crisis. Other international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (AfCHPR) have also received requests for advisory opinions on the matter. ITLOS issued its Advisory Opinion in May 2024 (see our analysis here) and the ICJ on July 23, 2025.
Inside the Court's Opinion
Chile and Colombia initially presented a set of questions to the Court, which the Court reformulated to enable a clear determination of the substantive purpose of its advisory function, as follows:
- What are the obligations to respect, ensure, and adopt necessary measures to guarantee substantive rights against harm or threats from the climate crisis?
- What are the obligations to ensure procedural rights in the context of climate-related impacts?
- What are the obligations to protect these rights without discrimination towards vulnerable groups in the face of the climate emergency?
Before addressing these three questions, the Court examined the causes of the climate emergency and its impact on global temperatures, meteorological phenomena, the oceans, ecosystems, and biodiversity—particularly in regions such as the Amazon, the insular territories, and the Caribbean states. Throughout the Opinion, the Court noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) reports constitute the most reliable scientific guidance available due to their representative nature, methodological rigor, and broad recognition by states. Critically, the Court pointed out that Latin American and Caribbean states are especially vulnerable to climate change because of their geographic location, their heavy reliance on natural resources for the livelihoods of their populations, and their commodity-based economies. These vulnerabilities are further intensified by their internal issues of underdevelopment and marginalization—which was the focus of the third question as reformulated by the Court.
In response to the first question, the Court held that in responding to the climate crisis, states must avoid actions that delay, obstruct, or reverse protective measures – any rollback must be exceptional, objectively justified, and meet standards of necessity and proportionality. In terms of specific measures to protect substantive rights from climate-related harm, the Court identified a set of minimum obligations: regulating private activities that pose environmental or climate risks, requiring environmental impact assessments, and implementing contingency and mitigation plans considering the climate change impact on both the environment and individuals.
The Court clarified that this duty is one of conduct (means), not of results, and must be evaluated using a due diligence standard – which is heightened in the climate context – and requires states to: (i) identify and assess climate risks, (ii) adopt ambitious and proactive preventive measures, (iii) integrate human rights into climate policy, (iv) ensure transparency, participation, and access to justice, and (v) regulate corporate conduct and maintain continuous oversight of climate actions. These obligations must evolve with scientific progress and emerging risks.
When addressing the second question, the Court outlined a series of key obligations for states to protect procedural rights in the context of climate change, which include:
- the right to access information, whereby states must require companies to transparently report the climate impacts of their activities, including emissions, sustainability efforts, and compliance with environmental standards;
- meaningful public participation in climate-related decision-making processes, including involvement in shaping mitigation and adaptation strategies, financing, international cooperation, and reparations;
- guarantee access to justice through flexible procedures guided by (i) the pro actione principle (which requires interpreting rules in a way that does not unjustifiably hinder access to justice, always favoring the interpretation that best facilitates such access), (ii) pro persona (interpreting rules in the manner most favorable to the protection of human rights), (iii) pro natura (an interpretive approach that prioritizes the protection and preservation of nature), as well as (iv) adopting alternative evidentiary standards, which may include the presumption of a causal link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate impact, or shifting the burden of proof, whereby the burden to prove or disprove certain facts (especially regarding environmental harm or emissions) can shift to the defendant; and
- ensuring a comprehensive approach to reparation, by establishing mechanisms to ensure integral reparations, in addition to monetary compensation. These measures may include restoration of environmental conditions, community rehabilitation (including medical attention), institutional reforms, and guarantees of non-repetition.
Finally, as regards the third question, the Court found that states must take targeted measures to protect vulnerable groups from the impacts of climate change. Vulnerable groups comprise children, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant and rural communities, women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. States are required to adopt inclusive response measures and to integrate gender and intersectional perspectives into all climate policies and actions. This duty includes supporting their self-governance and territorial management institutions with adequate financial resources, collecting disaggregated data on climate impacts with their participation, and developing inclusive public policies to address the effects of climate change on their territories, livelihoods, and cultural heritage.
Implications for private actors
As well as having a number of key impacts for states, there are a number of significant implications for private actors:
- The protection of the right to a healthy climate imposes specific obligations on states including (i) regulating and monitoring emissions, (ii) preserving carbon sinks, and (iii) conducting environmental impact assessments – all of which are likely to translate into consequences for private actors at the level of domestic regulation.
- As part of the State 's obligation to regulate private activities that pose environmental or climate risks, states are obligated to regulate corporate conduct to prevent, investigate, and remedy human rights violations linked to business activities.
- Specifically, states should require private companies to exercise due diligence across their entire value chains, which should encompass: identifying, preventing, and mitigating adverse impacts on human rights and the environment; disclosing greenhouse gas emissions; taking effective measures to reduce their climate impact; avoiding greenwashing or undue influence over public policy and regulation; as well as creating processes to continuously monitor and ensure compliance with environmental and human rights obligations.
- In order to ensure the right to access information in the context of climate change, states must require companies to transparently report the climate impacts of their activities, including emissions, sustainability efforts, and compliance with environmental standards.
- As it pertains to climate litigation, the Court indicated the need to guarantee access to justice through flexible procedures, where states follow, among others, the pro natura principle (prioritizing the protection and preservation of nature), and adopt alternative evidentiary standards consistent with the precautionary principle.
Comment
While the Opinion is not legally binding in the same way as a contentious judgment, it carries significant legal and political weight: it guides state conduct, informs legal reforms, and empowers litigants and courts to demand higher standards of climate and human rights protection.
In the inter-American context, State Parties to the Convention and Member States of the Organization of American States ("OAS") have an authoritative standard on the planning, implementation, and enforcement of environmental and climate policies. They are now held accountable to these obligations, which may prompt a wave of legal reforms across the region, including revisions to existing legislation, the development of new legal frameworks, and the setting up of new, or further empowerment of existing, institutions. In particular, it is expected that the Opinion will increase pressure on states to regulate business activities contributing to climate change and to introduce or enhance corporate due diligence measures. Change may be anticipated at an international level also by way of changes to trade and investment treaties, to reinforce the integration of environmental and human rights standards. Further, judicial decisions across the region and beyond may be influenced by the standards set out in the Opinion.
Against this background, commercial actors should anticipate climate-related regulatory shifts and will have to proactively evaluate their operations and policies. As a key aspect of managing risk in the increasingly complex field of climate litigation, private actors may additionally assess how their practices align with the international climate framework.
For a more detailed analysis of the Opinion, please refer to our Client Alert here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
