News

 

In a landmark decision issued on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that failure to comply with mitigation commitments is an internationally wrongful act and gives rise to legal responsibility for states. This responsibility can be invoked even by states that have not suffered direct harm, thus opening the door to climate litigation between states.

 

In this advisory opinion, the ICJ makes it clear that all States are obliged, under international law, to protect the global climate system and notes that nations harmed by climate change could be entitled to compensation for the damages suffered.

 

The international court also declared in its ruling that climate change is a “universal existential risk”, unequivocally caused by human activity and that member states have a “duty” to prevent it.

 

In April 2023, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to rule on what the state obligations are to guarantee the protection of the climate system against human-generated emissions and what the legal consequences of those obligations are.

 

The advisory opinion, initiated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries, was issued following public hearings in which 96 states and 11 international organizations submitted oral statements. This represents the highest level of participation in a procedure in the history of the body.

 

More information here and here .

 

 

On a planet beset by crises of all kinds, two recent decisions by international courts mark milestones of hope. On July 3 and 23, respectively, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued advisory opinions reaffirming the obligations of states to protect the climate system, the environment, and human rights from the impacts of the climate crisis.

 

These two instruments are the result of the tireless work of communities, indigenous peoples, social organizations and some progressive States in favor of justice, the good of the planet and all of humanity.

 

 

What are OCs and why do they matter?

 

Advisory opinions are legal pronouncements issued by international tribunals at the request of States or authorized bodies. They are binding insofar as they interpret rules of international law that impose obligations on States.

 

This means that what the courts say in these opinions are not mere recommendations; they constitute enforceable international law. However, their implementation, as is often the case with international law, depends on the political will of states and domestic courts, since there are no international mechanisms to compel compliance.

 

Therefore, their transformative potential will depend largely on our ability as civil society to activate them, disseminate them, strengthen them, and give them teeth so that they can result in the transformative changes we so desperately need.

 

 

Some key points of each decision

 

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' Advisory Opinion 32/25: Climate Justice from the South

Requested by the States of Colombia and Chile, this Advisory Council focuses on the obligation of States to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis. It is strongly grounded in the realities and knowledge of the Global South, making it especially relevant for our region. Some of its most valuable contributions include:

 

• It recognizes the climate crisis as a real, serious and urgent threat to human rights.
• It establishes that States have legal obligations, not just voluntary commitments, to address it from a human rights perspective.
• It states that the right to a healthy climate is part of the right to a healthy environment, which must be protected for present and future generations.
• It recognizes nature as a subject of rights and promotes the integration of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge with the best available science.
• It emphasizes the need to protect, above all, the most vulnerable groups, mentioning—among others—women, indigenous peoples, and human rights defenders.
• It establishes that States must define and maintain mitigation and adaptation goals, as well as regulate business activities.

 

 

The ICJ's Central Office: From the world's leading international court

 

Sponsored by the island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries, this Advisory Council on climate obligations interprets those obligations under international law, including treaties and customary international law. Among its key points, the decision is:

 

• It states that climate change represents an urgent and existential threat, making addressing it a universal responsibility.
• It recognizes that environmental protection is an indispensable condition for the effective enjoyment of human rights.
• It establishes that failure to comply with mitigation commitments constitutes an internationally wrongful act and generates legal responsibility for States. This responsibility can be invoked even by States that have not suffered direct damage, opening the door to litigation between States.
• It establishes that States can also be held responsible for failing to take the necessary measures to regulate and limit emissions from private actors under their jurisdictions.
• It considers illegal any actions that promote the production or consumption of fossil fuels, such as laws, public policies or decisions, mentioning subsidies as an example.
• It states that when an international act causes damage, the responsible state has an obligation to repair it. The lack of quantitative precision regarding that damage does not eliminate the obligation.
• It clarifies that states' obligations regarding climate change do not depend exclusively on the treaties they have signed. These obligations also stem from customary international law and erga omnes norms , that is, norms that bind all states due to their universal nature.

 

 

A call to action for civil society

 

These opinions are invaluable historical legal achievements, but their true power will depend on how we use them. Therefore, as organized civil society, we have a fundamental role to play in:

 

• Disseminate them widely, translating them into clear and accessible language to reach judges, legislators, government authorities, companies, communicators, communities and grassroots activists.
• Use them strategically in litigation and advocacy processes, integrating them into legal arguments, promoting legislative and regulatory reforms, and strengthening pressure campaigns to demand climate action.

 

 

Conclusion

The value of these instruments should not be underestimated. They are a key tool for strengthening climate litigation, environmental protection, and human rights in particularly dark times for humanity.

 

But we shouldn't romanticize them either. It's important to recognize their limitations, understanding that we must demand and pressure for their implementation, since ultimately their application depends on the will of the States.

 

The challenge is in our hands. As organizations, human rights defenders, communities, and activists, we have the opportunity to turn these words into real transformation. Let's celebrate that they exist, but let's not stop there. Let's join forces to make them count.

 

 

In its Advisory Opinion 32 , the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarified the legal obligations of States to effectively protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis, setting a key precedent for individuals and communities to access justice, as well as to guide the decisions of national and international courts.

 

 

In its ruling —responding to a request made in January 2023 by the States of Colombia and Chile—the Court recognized for the first time the existence of the autonomous right to a healthy climate as part of the right to a healthy environment. This implies that States are obligated, among other things, to guarantee a climate free from dangerous impacts resulting from human activities, ensuring environmental stability for future generations and avoiding imposing disproportionate burdens regarding climate impacts and actions.

 

 

Furthermore, the court defined state obligations to provide enhanced protection to groups that suffer the most severe and differentiated impacts of climate change: women, children; Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, peasant and fishing communities; older persons, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ persons, and human rights defenders, among others. It also clarified the duty of states to strengthen regulation of business activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

With this decision, the Inter-American Court becomes the first regional human rights tribunal to broadly and comprehensively define state obligations in the face of the climate emergency. This strengthens and builds upon previous rulings, such as the one issued in 2024 by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarifies state obligations to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis, and the one to be published soon by the International Court of Justice, the UN's highest court, to delineate states' responsibilities in the face of this global emergency.

 

 

More information here and here .

 

 

In the ruling that resolved the lawsuit filed by a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, in western Germany, established a key legal precedent: that the world's major emitters can be held liable for the climate damage they have caused under the German civil code.

 

Saúl Luciano Lliuya sued the German energy company RWE because a melting glacier threatened his home in Huaraz, Peru, and because he considered the company responsible for approximately 0.5% of global CO₂ emissions (a figure later reduced to 0.38%). The plaintiff therefore demanded that the company contribute to the costs of flood protection measures against the melting glacier.

 

Although the court dismissed the specific claim, finding based on the evidence that there was no concrete danger to Saul's property, the ruling could mark a turning point in climate justice. “Today’s ruling is landmark and will give impetus to climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies and, therefore, to the abandonment of fossil fuels worldwide,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Roda Verheyen. “Today’s ruling demonstrates that major emitters can be held liable under civil law because they contribute significantly to climate change with their greenhouse gas emissions. What has been said here today is truly important on a global scale.”

More information here and here .

 

In November 2023, the Strategic Committee for Youth Participation and Advocacy filed a lawsuit for protection against the refusal of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to provide information related to the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

 

Following the ruling, the ministry produced an information document that was deemed incomplete and lacking in transparency by the plaintiff, who is considering continuing the litigation.

 

After a detailed analysis of official documents, the plaintiff estimated that the progress in the implementation of the country's NDCs is only 2%, failing to observe the Principle of Progressivity and the right to environmental information established in the Escazú Agreement.

 

More information here

 

 

In December 2024, a Costa Rican lawyer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice arguing that the Executive Branch and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) failed to include the assessment of climate impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures.

 

The plaintiff argues, among other things, that the failure to assess climate variables violates the right of present and future generations to a safe climate within the framework of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

 

The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court admitted the appeal and ordered the Minister of the Presidency, the Minister of Environment and Energy, and the Secretary General of SETENA to submit reports on the reported events.

 

The case is ongoing and, if it has a favorable ruling, Costa Rica could join the list of Latin American countries that consider climate impacts for the approval of projects that require EIA.

 

More information here

 

Chile is undergoing a decarbonization process that has led to the closure of several coal-fired power plants. The energy transition is happening, but what about justice?

 

“The fight against Big Oil is not over today. We know that truth and the law are on our side. Greenpeace will continue campaigning for a green and peaceful future. We will not back down, we will not be silenced,” declared Kristin Casper, general counsel of Greenpeace International, after the ruling against the environmental organization in the lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer in the United States.

 

A jury in Morton County, North Dakota, found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other claims related to the 2016 and 2017 protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The jury ordered Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and the Greenpeace Fund to pay more than $660 million in damages to the pipeline company and its subsidiary, Dakota Access.

 

The organization is conducting a more thorough review of the ruling and plans to appeal. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of paying protesters to illegally disrupt pipeline construction and of spreading falsehoods about the project. The environmental organization rejects the accusations and maintains that its role in the protests was very limited and peaceful.

 

Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, stated: “…although they also attempted to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to nonviolence in all our actions… To be clear, Greenpeace’s story is not the story of Standing Rock; it is not for us to tell, despite the allegations in the lawsuit. Our story is about how an organization like Greenpeace can support fundamental struggles to protect communities most affected by the climate crisis, as well as the ongoing attacks on Indigenous sovereignty.”

 

More information here and here .

 

The case of Milieudefensie vs. Shell in the Netherlands deserves special analysis due to its impact on climate litigation against companies responsible for the climate crisis.

 

Last December, in a landmark case for the fight of indigenous peoples against exclusionary conservation in Peru, the Bellavista Mixed Court ordered government entities to grant title to the ancestral territory of the Kichwa Native Community of Puerto Franco—located in the department of San Martín—, to annul forestry concessions, and to conduct prior consultation on the creation of the Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) and its Master Plan; guaranteeing the community's access to natural resources and its participation in the management of the park, which includes the distribution of benefits from the sale of carbon credits that has occurred behind their backs since 2008.

 

The ruling is a response to the injunction filed in 2020 by the community and the Ethnic Council of the Kichwa Peoples of the Amazon with the aim of protecting the right to communal property, which includes access to and control of natural resources in their territory, as well as prior consultation on acts and administrative measures that have deprived the community of its territory and imposed an exclusionary conservation scheme with the creation of the PNCAZ to certify a REDD+ project (conservation and increase of carbon reserves and sustainable forest management as a measure of mitigating climate change).

 

The case revealed violations of the internationally recognized rights of Indigenous communities during the implementation of a carbon credit project promoted under the Paris Agreement. This is because the creation of the park affected the enjoyment of territorial rights by at least 29 Kichwa communities, who did not benefit from the distribution of funds—tens of millions of dollars in carbon credits—derived from the sale of ecosystem services provided by their ancestral territories.

More information here