* Authors: Sibelys Mejía and Sofía Villalba
Colombia's Constitutional Court ruling C-280 marks a milestone in the process by which states begin to incorporate concrete legal and technical mechanisms to address climate change. This 2024 ruling sends a message both to countries with existing environmental licensing systems and to those that do not yet have them but must create them. The message is clear: environmental licensing must analyze the climate impacts of projects, works, and activities. This article explains how we arrived at ruling C-280 and why it is so important for all countries in the region.
In July 2024, the Constitutional Court of Colombia issued a ruling updating three decades of environmental regulations for authorizing projects, works, and activities to address the current needs of the climate crisis. Through ruling C-280, the Court determined that all Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) must include, as a mandatory requirement, an evaluation of impacts related to climate change. While this may seem like a simple modification, this ruling underscores the State's obligation to prevent environmental damage related to climate change.
In Colombia, Law 99 of 1993 regulated, among other things, the environmental licensing system and established Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) as a requirement for granting environmental licenses for construction projects, the establishment of industries, or the development of any activity that could cause serious environmental damage or significant alteration to the landscape. Article 57 of this law required the evaluation of impacts on biotic (flora and fauna), abiotic (water, air, and soil), and socioeconomic elements. However, at that time, the state's obligations regarding climate change were not explicitly defined in the 1991 Constitution, nor in the international treaties ratified by Colombia.
The Kyoto Protocol did not yet exist, the Paris Agreement was decades away, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) had not yet developed its jurisprudence on the connection between the environment, climate change, and human rights. Three decades later, the same regulation remained in force, but it no longer addressed current constitutional and international challenges and standards. This compelled environmental authorities to authorize projects without assessing their impact on altering the climate system or human rights violations resulting from climate change (such as food security or climate displacement).
The strategy for litigating in favor of the environment and human rights
Dejusticia and ILEX Acción Jurídica filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Article 57 (in part) of Law 99 of 1993. Instead of requesting that the law be repealed, we asked the Constitutional Court to declare the article constitutional, provided that an analysis of climate change impacts is included in the process for granting environmental licenses. With this request, we sought two things: first, to avoid a regulatory gap that could hinder projects or weaken existing environmental protections; and second, to raise the standard of environmental assessment without waiting for Congress to amend the law.
Our claim was based on the theory of constitutional protection deficit , which applies when: i) a law is in force regulating a matter; ii) that law is insufficient because it does not incorporate content currently required by the Constitution; and iii) the missing constitutional standard arose after the law was enacted, as it was not foreseen at the time. In the case of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the constitutional obligation to assess climate impacts did not exist in 1993 when Congress passed the law, but it was incorporated later.
Based on this, we argue that environmental protection (Article 79), as well as the guarantee of sustainable development and environmental prevention (Article 80), are essential constitutional obligations of the Colombian State. This implies that the duty of environmental protection would be violated if the effects that a project, activity, or work generates on the climate—one of the most relevant concerns today in the face of development—were not included in the main instrument for preventing, mitigating, and containing environmental risks.
We argued before the Court that the failure to incorporate climate change as an element of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) violated the standard of the principles of sustainable development, prevention, and environmental protection. This is because climate change is a significant and serious harm that the State has an obligation to prevent and for which it must adopt measures under Articles 79 and 80 of the Constitution. Therefore, if EIAs, which are fundamental instruments of prevention, do not include climate impacts, the plans for prevention, mitigation, correction, and compensation of impacts are incapable of comprehensively managing the real effects of the project, work, or activity.
The Constitutional Court accepted our argument and declared that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) must include an evaluation of climate change impacts. In its decision, the Court concluded that the absence of this requirement constituted an unacceptable deficit in constitutional protection that jeopardized the right to a healthy environment and environmental integrity, as well as the State's duties under Articles 79 and 80 of the Constitution.
Why is this case so relevant to countries other than Colombia?
Although this is a domestic law decision, there are at least three key lessons for litigants, activists, and other states:
This case demonstrates that a new law or international litigation is not always necessary to strengthen environmental protection and combat the climate crisis. Constitutional interpretations by the courts can serve to incorporate state obligations regarding climate change into older laws that did not address them.
The link between human rights and climate change is reaffirmed. Through this ruling, the Constitutional Court recognized that climate change affects human rights and that the duty to prevent environmental damage from projects due to their impact on the climate is related to the need to protect the lives of people living in the most affected areas. Incorporating this argument into legal claims strengthens their scope and legitimacy.
- In contexts where legislation is progressing slowly to address priority challenges, an interpretative ruling like this can bring about immediate and mandatory changes.
Other countries have already made progress in including climate change in their environmental assessments. The European Union, for example, requires that all projects subject to an EIA consider their greenhouse gas emissions and their resilience to future climate scenarios. In Colombia, this inclusion was established through constitutional jurisprudence, creating a useful precedent for contexts where the legislative route is blocked or insufficient. While including this analysis in the environmental license does not, in itself, guarantee environmental protection, it creates a verifiable legal obligation that environmental authorities can and should enforce.
Additionally, this ruling precedes two important events at the international level:
i) Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2025. This decision, among other things, establishes state obligations in the protection of human rights in the face of the climate emergency, defines climate change as a human rights problem, recognizes the right to a healthy climate, and requires States to implement mitigation and adaptation actions, as well as protection for vulnerable groups such as ethnic peoples, children and adolescents.
- The report A/80/187 of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which also highlights the connection between EIAs, the guarantee of human rights and the fight against climate change.
Thus, although the C-280 ruling of 2024 predates these two international instruments, it is a way in which, through litigation and legal mobilization, it is possible to ensure that States consolidate tools or take concrete measures to ensure that the assessment of the impact that projects, activities and works have on the climate are part of the fulfillment of the obligation to protect the environment, natural resources and human rights.
Colombia, then, has set an important milestone to move towards better and higher standards of protection, prevention and care.
* Sibelys Mejía is the Director of Legal Mobilization at ILEX Acción Jurídica , and Sofía Villalba is a Researcher at Dejusticia.
* Authors: Sibelys Mejía and Sofía Villalba
Colombia's Constitutional Court ruling C-280 marks a milestone in the process by which states begin to incorporate concrete legal and technical mechanisms to address climate change. This 2024 ruling sends a message both to countries with existing environmental licensing systems and to those that do not yet have them but must create them. The message is clear: environmental licensing must analyze the climate impacts of projects, works, and activities. This article explains how we arrived at ruling C-280 and why it is so important for all countries in the region.
In July 2024, the Constitutional Court of Colombia issued a ruling updating three decades of environmental regulations for authorizing projects, works, and activities to address the current needs of the climate crisis. Through ruling C-280, the Court determined that all Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) must include, as a mandatory requirement, an evaluation of impacts related to climate change. While this may seem like a simple modification, this ruling underscores the State's obligation to prevent environmental damage related to climate change.
In Colombia, Law 99 of 1993 regulated, among other things, the environmental licensing system and established Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) as a requirement for granting environmental licenses for construction projects, the establishment of industries, or the development of any activity that could cause serious environmental damage or significant alteration to the landscape. Article 57 of this law required the evaluation of impacts on biotic (flora and fauna), abiotic (water, air, and soil), and socioeconomic elements. However, at that time, the state's obligations regarding climate change were not explicitly defined in the 1991 Constitution, nor in the international treaties ratified by Colombia.
The Kyoto Protocol did not yet exist, the Paris Agreement was decades away, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) had not yet developed its jurisprudence on the connection between the environment, climate change, and human rights. Three decades later, the same regulation remained in force, but it no longer addressed current constitutional and international challenges and standards. This compelled environmental authorities to authorize projects without assessing their impact on altering the climate system or human rights violations resulting from climate change (such as food security or climate displacement).
The strategy for litigating in favor of the environment and human rights
Dejusticia and ILEX Acción Jurídica filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Article 57 (in part) of Law 99 of 1993. Instead of requesting that the law be repealed, we asked the Constitutional Court to declare the article constitutional, provided that an analysis of climate change impacts is included in the process for granting environmental licenses. With this request, we sought two things: first, to avoid a regulatory gap that could hinder projects or weaken existing environmental protections; and second, to raise the standard of environmental assessment without waiting for Congress to amend the law.
Our claim was based on the theory of constitutional protection deficit , which applies when: i) a law is in force regulating a matter; ii) that law is insufficient because it does not incorporate content currently required by the Constitution; and iii) the missing constitutional standard arose after the law was enacted, as it was not foreseen at the time. In the case of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the constitutional obligation to assess climate impacts did not exist in 1993 when Congress passed the law, but it was incorporated later.
Based on this, we argue that environmental protection (Article 79), as well as the guarantee of sustainable development and environmental prevention (Article 80), are essential constitutional obligations of the Colombian State. This implies that the duty of environmental protection would be violated if the effects that a project, activity, or work generates on the climate—one of the most relevant concerns today in the face of development—were not included in the main instrument for preventing, mitigating, and containing environmental risks.
We argued before the Court that the failure to incorporate climate change as an element of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) violated the standard of the principles of sustainable development, prevention, and environmental protection. This is because climate change is a significant and serious harm that the State has an obligation to prevent and for which it must adopt measures under Articles 79 and 80 of the Constitution. Therefore, if EIAs, which are fundamental instruments of prevention, do not include climate impacts, the plans for prevention, mitigation, correction, and compensation of impacts are incapable of comprehensively managing the real effects of the project, work, or activity.
The Constitutional Court accepted our argument and declared that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) must include an evaluation of climate change impacts. In its decision, the Court concluded that the absence of this requirement constituted an unacceptable deficit in constitutional protection that jeopardized the right to a healthy environment and environmental integrity, as well as the State's duties under Articles 79 and 80 of the Constitution.
Why is this case so relevant to countries other than Colombia?
Although this is a domestic law decision, there are at least three key lessons for litigants, activists, and other states:
This case demonstrates that a new law or international litigation is not always necessary to strengthen environmental protection and combat the climate crisis. Constitutional interpretations by the courts can serve to incorporate state obligations regarding climate change into older laws that did not address them.
The link between human rights and climate change is reaffirmed. Through this ruling, the Constitutional Court recognized that climate change affects human rights and that the duty to prevent environmental damage from projects due to their impact on the climate is related to the need to protect the lives of people living in the most affected areas. Incorporating this argument into legal claims strengthens their scope and legitimacy.
- In contexts where legislation is progressing slowly to address priority challenges, an interpretative ruling like this can bring about immediate and mandatory changes.
Other countries have already made progress in including climate change in their environmental assessments. The European Union, for example, requires that all projects subject to an EIA consider their greenhouse gas emissions and their resilience to future climate scenarios. In Colombia, this inclusion was established through constitutional jurisprudence, creating a useful precedent for contexts where the legislative route is blocked or insufficient. While including this analysis in the environmental license does not, in itself, guarantee environmental protection, it creates a verifiable legal obligation that environmental authorities can and should enforce.
Additionally, this ruling precedes two important events at the international level:
i) Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2025. This decision, among other things, establishes state obligations in the protection of human rights in the face of the climate emergency, defines climate change as a human rights problem, recognizes the right to a healthy climate, and requires States to implement mitigation and adaptation actions, as well as protection for vulnerable groups such as ethnic peoples, children and adolescents.
- The report A/80/187 of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which also highlights the connection between EIAs, the guarantee of human rights and the fight against climate change.
Thus, although the C-280 ruling of 2024 predates these two international instruments, it is a way in which, through litigation and legal mobilization, it is possible to ensure that States consolidate tools or take concrete measures to ensure that the assessment of the impact that projects, activities and works have on the climate are part of the fulfillment of the obligation to protect the environment, natural resources and human rights.
Colombia, then, has set an important milestone to move towards better and higher standards of protection, prevention and care.
* Sibelys Mejía is the Director of Legal Mobilization at ILEX Acción Jurídica , and Sofía Villalba is a Researcher at Dejusticia.