Advisory opinions (AO) issued by international courts are non-adjudicative legal pronouncements issued at the request of States or authorized bodies, with the aim of interpreting international law on a specific issue. Their potential to directly influence the drafting of national laws, judicial decisions, and public policies highlights their great value, especially in the field of international human rights and environmental law.
Recently, these opinions have taken on particular significance in the area of climate change, as various international courts have responded to requests seeking to clarify states’ obligations regarding the climate crisis from a human rights perspective:
- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), an autonomous judicial institution within the inter-American system responsible for the application and interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights, issued its Opinion OC-32/25 on the climate emergency and human rights in July 2025, in response to a request submitted by the governments of Colombia and Chile. Another important Opinion of the IACHR is OC-23/17, which addresses the right to a healthy environment and its relationship to various human rights. Both Opinions establish obligations for the American States that have ratified the Convention.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, also issued its advisory opinion in July 2025, based on a request submitted by the UN General Assembly in March 2023. The advisory opinion addresses the responsibilities of States for the impacts of climate change on present and future generations, as well as their duties of cooperation and respect for international environmental law.
- The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) published its advisory opinion in May 2024, requested by the Committee of Small Island States (COSIS). This advisory opinion focuses on the obligations of States to protect the marine environment from the effects of climate change, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
- The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), although it has not yet issued its opinion, received a request in May 2025 from a group of African civil society organizations. This request seeks to clarify the obligations of African states in the face of the climate crisis, within the framework of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other regional instruments.
At the Climate Litigation Platform we invite lawyers, activists, organizations, and communities—as well as all those who use litigation as a tool to promote climate justice—to utilize advisory opinions as key instruments for the protection of the environment and human rights. Their significant interpretive and political power can and must be harnessed to demand that States comply with their international obligations, thereby strengthening the fight for climate justice.
ADVISORY OPINION NO. 32 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)
ADVISORY OPINION ON AFRICA
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights
Date of request: January 9, 2023
Date of decision: May 29, 2025 (notified on July 3, 2025)
Summary
On January 9, 2023, the Republics of Chile and Colombia submitted a joint request for an Advisory Opinion (OC) to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), with the aim of clarifying the scope of states’ obligations in the face of the climate emergency under international human rights law. The request raised questions about the effects of the climate emergency on human rights, with a special emphasis on the protection of particularly vulnerable communities and ecosystems.
The Process
The proceedings of OC-32/25 are considered historic, both due to the magnitude of the issues addressed and the unprecedented level of participation. The Court invited interested individuals and organizations to submit written observations, resulting in more than 260 submissions from over 600 stakeholders worldwide, including States, international organizations, public institutions, indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and independent experts.
In addition, two public hearings were held, during which 185 delegations were heard. The first took place in Bridgetown, Barbados (April 22–25, 2024), and the second at two locations: Brasília, Brazil (May 24, 2024), and Manaus, in the Brazilian Amazon (May 25–29, 2024). The presence and participation of communities directly affected by the climate crisis and of environmental defenders were particularly significant, as the importance of incorporating their voices into the decision-making process is recognized.
The Court adopted its decision on May 29, 2025, and it was notified on July 3. Concurring opinions were issued by Justices Mudrovitsch, Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Pérez Manrique, and Justice Gómez, as well as partially dissenting opinions by Justices Hernández López and Pérez Goldberg and Justice Sierra Porto. The texts of the opinions will be published in August 2025.
Structure of the Advisory Opinion
This international instrument is organized into two main parts:
- Factual and Legal Context: This section analyzes the phenomenon of climate change, its impacts on people and the environment, and addresses the international response to the crisis, including legal developments in the States of the Americas.
- Legal Interpretation: This section focuses on interpreting the provisions of the Inter-American System to determine the scope of states’ obligations in the face of the climate crisis. It addresses both general and procedural obligations, those derived from substantive rights, as well as the rights of individuals and groups in vulnerable situations.
Amicus Curiae Briefs That Informed the Advisory Opinion
The more than 260 written submissions filed as amicus curiae briefs during the process that led to the Advisory Opinion constitute, in and of themselves, invaluable material for climate litigation in the region. These submissions offer a detailed overview of the socio-environmental impacts of climate change in the region, as well as a series of recommendations for its prevention, mitigation, and remediation, with special attention to the rights of vulnerable groups and the protection of fragile ecosystems.
Many of these submissions include firsthand accounts and concrete evidence of the impacts of climate change at the local level, which helped bring to light damages that are often overlooked in international debates. Others provided solid legal grounds for demanding more effective government action grounded in a human rights approach. Taken together, these amicus briefs offer arguments that can be strategically used in climate litigation and advocacy efforts throughout the region.
Here you can find some summaries of those amicus briefs
Cases invoking Advisory Opinion 32/25
Key developments regarding human rights under Advisory Opinion 32/25
Advisory Opinion 32/25 opens up new possibilities for climate litigation, government action, and policy advocacy, addressing issues of great relevance to human rights and climate change. Below is a summary of some of its key developments:
- Recognition of the Climate Emergency: The Court recognizes that climate change constitutes an emergency that seriously affects people and requires immediate responses from States. It establishes that States have not only voluntary commitments but also legal obligations under international human rights law to address it.
- Recognition of the human right to a healthy climate: The Court determines that this right derives from the right to a healthy environment and entails a corresponding duty on the part of States to address the causes of climate change. This right must be protected for both present and future generations.
- States’ Obligations Regarding Mitigation: States must establish clear targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, keep their mitigation strategies up to date with a human rights-based approach, and regulate and monitor business activities that generate GHGs.
- States’ Obligations Regarding Adaptation: States have specific duties aimed at protecting rights threatened by climate impacts, such as the right to life, health, personal integrity, freedom of residence and movement, water, food, work, and education, among others. This requires adaptation plans grounded in a human rights approach and tailored to the specific vulnerabilities of each territory.
- Enhanced protection for vulnerable groups: States must adopt differentiated measures to ensure substantive equality in the enjoyment of rights in the context of the climate emergency. The most vulnerable groups—such as women, children, indigenous and tribal peoples, communities of African descent, rural farmers, and fishing communities, among others—must be protected.
- Enhanced due diligence standard: It is established that States must act in the face of serious risks, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty. This entails a comprehensive assessment of climate risks, the mainstreaming of human rights in the formulation and implementation of climate policies, effective regulation of corporate conduct, guarantees of access to information, participation, and justice, and the strengthening of international cooperation regarding financing, technology, and capacity building.
- The Role of Companies in Addressing the Climate Emergency: The Court recognizes that not only States but also companies have obligations and responsibilities regarding climate change and its impacts. The Court acknowledges that companies play a fundamental role and calls on them to ensure that their activities do not cause or contribute to human rights violations.
- Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: This principle of international environmental law is reaffirmed as a framework to guide efforts in cooperation, financial support, and technology transfer to developing countries.
- Integration of local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge with the best available science: The Court highlights the importance of promoting a dialogue aimed at “exploring the relationships between different knowledge systems” and ensuring that this dialogue allows for the integration of the best available science with local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, and fosters the joint production of climate knowledge between scientists and the bearers of such knowledge.
- The right to defend environmental human rights and the rights of environmental defenders: The Court affirms that, in the context of the climate emergency, the right to defend rights—including environmental rights—is an autonomous right. It notes that defenders are allies of democracy and that the importance of their work is heightened by the climate emergency; thus, States have a special duty to protect them, which translates into specific obligations to protect them, investigate, and, where appropriate, punish any attacks, threats, or acts of intimidation they may suffer.
- Duty to Prevent Climate-Induced Migration and/or Displacement: The Court imposes the obligation to prevent human mobility resulting directly or indirectly from disasters and other impacts of climate change, in accordance with the principles of solidarity, common but differentiated responsibilities, enhanced diligence, and intergenerational equity.
- Recognition of Nature as a Subject of Rights: The Court recognizes that the protection of a healthy climate must extend not only to people but also to Nature as the foundation of life. It emphasizes that ecosystems and their components require autonomous legal protection, which is strengthened when Nature is recognized as a subject of rights.
Relevance for Latin America and the Caribbean
An advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights may be legally binding on member states of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Court itself has reiterated that its advisory opinions constitute legal guidelines applicable to all member states, including those that did not directly participate in the original request.
Thus, by virtue of the principle of conventionality review, all national authorities—including judges, legislators, and public officials—may interpret and apply domestic laws in accordance with the advisory opinions derived from the American Convention on Human Rights.
With OC 32/25, states have the opportunity to apply higher standards of protection in their legislative, regulatory, judicial, and public policy decisions. In particular, national judges are called upon to use it as an interpretive framework when resolving climate-related disputes, which opens a concrete path to strengthening climate justice in the region.
However, as is often the case in international law, its effectiveness depends largely on how it is used. This is where the role of civil society is crucial: organizations, communities, and social movements are the ones who can drive its effective implementation by promoting its inclusion in strategic litigation, regulatory processes, and advocacy efforts. By demanding compliance, they help translate the law into action, strengthening this key tool for addressing the climate crisis from a human rights perspective.
Composition of the Court at the time of the decision:
President: Judge Nancy Hernández López (Costa Rica)
Vice President: Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch (Brazil)
Judges:
- Humberto Sierra Porto (Colombia)
- Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot (Mexico)
- Ricardo Pérez Manrique (Uruguay)
- Verónica Gómez (Argentina)
- Patricia Pérez Goldberg (Chile)
Provisions Invoked
a) International Treaties
● American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador)
● American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
● Inter-American Democratic Charter
● Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement)
● Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
● Convention on the Rights of the Child
● Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
● United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
● Convention on Biological Diversity
● United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
● Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration)
● Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)
● Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
● Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization
● Paris Agreement
● Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
b) Principles
- principle of equality and non-discrimination
- principle of interdependence among human rights
- pro persona principle,
- pro natura principles
- equity principle,
- principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
- precautionary principle
- prevention principle
- polluter pays principle
- progressive principle
- principle of good faith in international relations
- universality principle
- effectiveness principle
- intergenerational equity principle
Useful Links and Reference Sources
Official Texts
- American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José)
- Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights (Chile and Colombia)
- Observations Submitted in Response to Request OC-32/25
- Press release from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (July 2025)
- Official website for Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (includes hearings, videos, and related documents)
Analysis and Outreach
Advisory opinions (AO) issued by international courts are non-adjudicative legal pronouncements issued at the request of States or authorized bodies, with the aim of interpreting international law on a specific issue. Their potential to directly influence the drafting of national laws, judicial decisions, and public policies highlights their great value, especially in the field of international human rights and environmental law.
Recently, these opinions have taken on particular significance in the area of climate change, as various international courts have responded to requests seeking to clarify states’ obligations regarding the climate crisis from a human rights perspective:
- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), an autonomous judicial institution within the inter-American system responsible for the application and interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights, issued its Opinion OC-32/25 on the climate emergency and human rights in July 2025, in response to a request submitted by the governments of Colombia and Chile. Another important Opinion of the IACHR is OC-23/17, which addresses the right to a healthy environment and its relationship to various human rights. Both Opinions establish obligations for the American States that have ratified the Convention.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, also issued its advisory opinion in July 2025, based on a request submitted by the UN General Assembly in March 2023. The advisory opinion addresses the responsibilities of States for the impacts of climate change on present and future generations, as well as their duties of cooperation and respect for international environmental law.
- The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) published its advisory opinion in May 2024, requested by the Committee of Small Island States (COSIS). This advisory opinion focuses on the obligations of States to protect the marine environment from the effects of climate change, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
- The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), although it has not yet issued its opinion, received a request in May 2025 from a group of African civil society organizations. This request seeks to clarify the obligations of African states in the face of the climate crisis, within the framework of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other regional instruments.
At the Climate Litigation Platform we invite lawyers, activists, organizations, and communities—as well as all those who use litigation as a tool to promote climate justice—to utilize advisory opinions as key instruments for the protection of the environment and human rights. Their significant interpretive and political power can and must be harnessed to demand that States comply with their international obligations, thereby strengthening the fight for climate justice.
ADVISORY OPINION NO. 32 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)
ADVISORY OPINION ON AFRICA
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights
Date of request: January 9, 2023
Date of decision: May 29, 2025 (notified on July 3, 2025)
Summary
On January 9, 2023, the Republics of Chile and Colombia submitted a joint request for an Advisory Opinion (OC) to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), with the aim of clarifying the scope of states’ obligations in the face of the climate emergency under international human rights law. The request raised questions about the effects of the climate emergency on human rights, with a special emphasis on the protection of particularly vulnerable communities and ecosystems.
The Process
The proceedings of OC-32/25 are considered historic, both due to the magnitude of the issues addressed and the unprecedented level of participation. The Court invited interested individuals and organizations to submit written observations, resulting in more than 260 submissions from over 600 stakeholders worldwide, including States, international organizations, public institutions, indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and independent experts.
In addition, two public hearings were held, during which 185 delegations were heard. The first took place in Bridgetown, Barbados (April 22–25, 2024), and the second at two locations: Brasília, Brazil (May 24, 2024), and Manaus, in the Brazilian Amazon (May 25–29, 2024). The presence and participation of communities directly affected by the climate crisis and of environmental defenders were particularly significant, as the importance of incorporating their voices into the decision-making process is recognized.
The Court adopted its decision on May 29, 2025, and it was notified on July 3. Concurring opinions were issued by Justices Mudrovitsch, Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Pérez Manrique, and Justice Gómez, as well as partially dissenting opinions by Justices Hernández López and Pérez Goldberg and Justice Sierra Porto. The texts of the opinions will be published in August 2025.
Structure of the Advisory Opinion
This international instrument is organized into two main parts:
- Factual and Legal Context: This section analyzes the phenomenon of climate change, its impacts on people and the environment, and addresses the international response to the crisis, including legal developments in the States of the Americas.
- Legal Interpretation: This section focuses on interpreting the provisions of the Inter-American System to determine the scope of states’ obligations in the face of the climate crisis. It addresses both general and procedural obligations, those derived from substantive rights, as well as the rights of individuals and groups in vulnerable situations.
Amicus Curiae Briefs That Informed the Advisory Opinion
The more than 260 written submissions filed as amicus curiae briefs during the process that led to the Advisory Opinion constitute, in and of themselves, invaluable material for climate litigation in the region. These submissions offer a detailed overview of the socio-environmental impacts of climate change in the region, as well as a series of recommendations for its prevention, mitigation, and remediation, with special attention to the rights of vulnerable groups and the protection of fragile ecosystems.
Many of these submissions include firsthand accounts and concrete evidence of the impacts of climate change at the local level, which helped bring to light damages that are often overlooked in international debates. Others provided solid legal grounds for demanding more effective government action grounded in a human rights approach. Taken together, these amicus briefs offer arguments that can be strategically used in climate litigation and advocacy efforts throughout the region.
Here you can find some summaries of those amicus briefs
Cases invoking Advisory Opinion 32/25
Key developments regarding human rights under Advisory Opinion 32/25
Advisory Opinion 32/25 opens up new possibilities for climate litigation, government action, and policy advocacy, addressing issues of great relevance to human rights and climate change. Below is a summary of some of its key developments:
- Recognition of the Climate Emergency: The Court recognizes that climate change constitutes an emergency that seriously affects people and requires immediate responses from States. It establishes that States have not only voluntary commitments but also legal obligations under international human rights law to address it.
- Recognition of the human right to a healthy climate: The Court determines that this right derives from the right to a healthy environment and entails a corresponding duty on the part of States to address the causes of climate change. This right must be protected for both present and future generations.
- States’ Obligations Regarding Mitigation: States must establish clear targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, keep their mitigation strategies up to date with a human rights-based approach, and regulate and monitor business activities that generate GHGs.
- States’ Obligations Regarding Adaptation: States have specific duties aimed at protecting rights threatened by climate impacts, such as the right to life, health, personal integrity, freedom of residence and movement, water, food, work, and education, among others. This requires adaptation plans grounded in a human rights approach and tailored to the specific vulnerabilities of each territory.
- Enhanced protection for vulnerable groups: States must adopt differentiated measures to ensure substantive equality in the enjoyment of rights in the context of the climate emergency. The most vulnerable groups—such as women, children, indigenous and tribal peoples, communities of African descent, rural farmers, and fishing communities, among others—must be protected.
- Enhanced due diligence standard: It is established that States must act in the face of serious risks, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty. This entails a comprehensive assessment of climate risks, the mainstreaming of human rights in the formulation and implementation of climate policies, effective regulation of corporate conduct, guarantees of access to information, participation, and justice, and the strengthening of international cooperation regarding financing, technology, and capacity building.
- The Role of Companies in Addressing the Climate Emergency: The Court recognizes that not only States but also companies have obligations and responsibilities regarding climate change and its impacts. The Court acknowledges that companies play a fundamental role and calls on them to ensure that their activities do not cause or contribute to human rights violations.
- Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: This principle of international environmental law is reaffirmed as a framework to guide efforts in cooperation, financial support, and technology transfer to developing countries.
- Integration of local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge with the best available science: The Court highlights the importance of promoting a dialogue aimed at “exploring the relationships between different knowledge systems” and ensuring that this dialogue allows for the integration of the best available science with local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, and fosters the joint production of climate knowledge between scientists and the bearers of such knowledge.
- The right to defend environmental human rights and the rights of environmental defenders: The Court affirms that, in the context of the climate emergency, the right to defend rights—including environmental rights—is an autonomous right. It notes that defenders are allies of democracy and that the importance of their work is heightened by the climate emergency; thus, States have a special duty to protect them, which translates into specific obligations to protect them, investigate, and, where appropriate, punish any attacks, threats, or acts of intimidation they may suffer.
- Duty to Prevent Climate-Induced Migration and/or Displacement: The Court imposes the obligation to prevent human mobility resulting directly or indirectly from disasters and other impacts of climate change, in accordance with the principles of solidarity, common but differentiated responsibilities, enhanced diligence, and intergenerational equity.
- Recognition of Nature as a Subject of Rights: The Court recognizes that the protection of a healthy climate must extend not only to people but also to Nature as the foundation of life. It emphasizes that ecosystems and their components require autonomous legal protection, which is strengthened when Nature is recognized as a subject of rights.
Relevance for Latin America and the Caribbean
An advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights may be legally binding on member states of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Court itself has reiterated that its advisory opinions constitute legal guidelines applicable to all member states, including those that did not directly participate in the original request.
Thus, by virtue of the principle of conventionality review, all national authorities—including judges, legislators, and public officials—may interpret and apply domestic laws in accordance with the advisory opinions derived from the American Convention on Human Rights.
With OC 32/25, states have the opportunity to apply higher standards of protection in their legislative, regulatory, judicial, and public policy decisions. In particular, national judges are called upon to use it as an interpretive framework when resolving climate-related disputes, which opens a concrete path to strengthening climate justice in the region.
However, as is often the case in international law, its effectiveness depends largely on how it is used. This is where the role of civil society is crucial: organizations, communities, and social movements are the ones who can drive its effective implementation by promoting its inclusion in strategic litigation, regulatory processes, and advocacy efforts. By demanding compliance, they help translate the law into action, strengthening this key tool for addressing the climate crisis from a human rights perspective.
Composition of the Court at the time of the decision:
President: Judge Nancy Hernández López (Costa Rica)
Vice President: Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch (Brazil)
Judges:
- Humberto Sierra Porto (Colombia)
- Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot (Mexico)
- Ricardo Pérez Manrique (Uruguay)
- Verónica Gómez (Argentina)
- Patricia Pérez Goldberg (Chile)
Provisions Invoked
a) International Treaties
● American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador)
● American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
● Inter-American Democratic Charter
● Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement)
● Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
● Convention on the Rights of the Child
● Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
● United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
● Convention on Biological Diversity
● United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
● Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration)
● Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)
● Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
● Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization
● Paris Agreement
● Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
b) Principles
- principle of equality and non-discrimination
- principle of interdependence among human rights
- pro persona principle,
- pro natura principles
- equity principle,
- principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
- precautionary principle
- prevention principle
- polluter pays principle
- progressive principle
- principle of good faith in international relations
- universality principle
- effectiveness principle
- intergenerational equity principle
Useful Links and Reference Sources
Official Texts
- American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José)
- Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights (Chile and Colombia)
- Observations Submitted in Response to Request OC-32/25
- Press release from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (July 2025)
- Official website for Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (includes hearings, videos, and related documents)
Analysis and Outreach