On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its Advisory Opinion No. 32 (AO 32) on Climate Emergency and Human Rights.
The AO 32 was requested by Chile and Colombia, countries that in January 2023 submitted the request with the objective of clarifying the scope of state obligations—both individually and collectively—to address the climate emergency within the framework of international human rights law.
At the time, the requesting States stated that the Court’s opinion “will serve to clarify the meaning, timeliness, and scope of the obligations of national States, subnational entities (cities, regions, or departments), responsibility regarding non-state actors, and transnational, regional, and global obligations on the matter.”
Their submission referenced several international processes in which climate-related issues had been addressed and, in some cases, led to significant rulings.
The Billy and Others v. Australia Case
The UN Human Rights Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), issued a decision on July 21, 2022, partially upholding the complaint filed in 2019 by a group of Indigenous people from the Torres Strait in Australia (Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019).
The Torres Strait Islanders are a Melanesian people in Queensland, Australia, with cultural ties to Papua New Guinea inhabitants.
They live on 38 of the region’s 133 islands. According to the 2021 Australian census, 4,124 people live on these islands, 90.6% of whom identify as Torres Strait Islanders and/or Aboriginal Australians.
These islands are small and low-lying, making them extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly rising sea levels and other weather events. Saltwater has long been encroaching on the islands, damaging local vegetation, destroying homes and sacred sites, and degrading fishing areas.
The UN body concluded that the Australian government failed to take adequate action in response.
The Committee found that Australia had violated Article 2 of the ICCPR, which states:
“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
According to the Committee, Australia has a positive obligation to implement adaptation measures to protect the islanders’ homes, private lives, and families.
Responsibility was also found under Article 27, which reads:
“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”
The Committee found that the islanders have already experienced erosion of traditional lands, natural resources, and cultural sites due to climate change, preventing them from passing on their way of life to future generations.
In conclusion, the Committee determined that Australia’s failure to take timely adaptation measures to protect the collective ability of the islanders to enjoy and preserve their culture violated Article 27.
Therefore, the UN body directed Australia to provide full reparations to the affected individuals.
This includes adequate compensation, meaningful consultation with Torres Strait Islander communities to understand their needs, continued efforts to keep islanders safe, and monitoring and review of the effectiveness of implemented measures.
Additionally, the Committee ordered the State to prevent similar violations in the future.
Advisory Opinion 32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Taking into account this and many other precedents, such as its prior Advisory Opinion 23 on Environment and Human Rights (2017) which recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous and individual right and established state obligations to prevent transboundary environmental harm that could affect the human rights of people beyond their borders, the Court launched an extensive consultative process to draft AO 32.
According to official reports, over 260 written submissions were received from more than 600 global actors, and 180 delegations were heard in three public hearings held over five days in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024.
Before delving into strictly legal aspects, the Court developed a factual analysis of climate change, its causes, consequences, and particularly its impact on human rights.
In this regard, the regional high court reflects the overwhelming consensus among scientific sources, concluding that humanity is indeed facing a genuine climate emergency, primarily driven by anthropogenic activities—mostly originating from a few States—which gravely affect all of humanity, especially the most vulnerable populations.
Given this, there are clear responsibilities for States, which must be addressed urgently through concrete and effective actions.
In the legal dimension, the Court recognized the existence of a human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment.
As a result, States have duties to act against the causes of climate change, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, regulate and oversee private actors, and define and progressively advance toward sustainable development within a human rights framework.
The Court also addressed States’ obligations concerning climate adaptation and their specific duties to protect rights threatened by climate impacts, including the rights to life, health, personal integrity, freedom of residence and movement, water, food, work, and education, among others.
Nature and the Right to Science
Two of the most novel and significant aspects of AO 32 concern the protection of Nature and the right to science, including traditional knowledge.
In section 7 of the ruling (approved by a divided vote), the Court recognizes Nature (with a capital “N”) as a subject of rights. This strengthens the protection of ecosystem integrity using effective legal tools for preventing existential harm before it becomes irreversible.
The Court frames this as a “contemporary expression of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment” an idea increasingly recognized at the international level as a form of jus cogens related to the imperative prohibition of anthropogenic conduct that irreversibly affects the balance and interdependence of the shared ecosystem (see section 8 of the ruling).
Regarding the right to science and the recognition of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, in section 14 the Court declares that:
“All people have the right to access the benefits of measures based on the best available science and the recognition of local, traditional, or Indigenous knowledge.”
This position is based, among others, on Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
“Progressive Development: The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially in the economic and technical fields, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, to the extent of available resources, by legislative or other appropriate means.”
Additionally, it cites Article 14(2) of the Protocol of San Salvador:
“Right to the benefits of culture: The States Parties (…) Among the measures to be adopted by the States Parties to this Protocol to ensure the full exercise of this right shall be those necessary for the conservation, development, and dissemination of science, culture, and art.”
It is understood that the right to science is essential for the effective realization of other fundamental rights and to address the adverse consequences of climate change based on objective public decision-making.
The Court affirms that this right to science also extends to traditional, Indigenous, and local knowledge, which is particularly important in the context of the climate emergency due to the urgency and complexity of the necessary actions. Decisions must be made based on the best available knowledge.
Indigenous Peoples
Given the Court’s position that climate change disproportionately affects Indigenous and tribal peoples—who, both individually and collectively, depend on ecosystems exposed to the effects of climate change and extreme weather events—AO 32 proposes that States should take various actions:
- Reinforce the recognition and functioning of representative institutions of Indigenous and tribal peoples in matters related to self-governance, autonomy, and the management of territory and natural resources;
- Design and implement, with the participation of relevant peoples and communities, studies, records, and statistical reports to gather disaggregated data on the impacts of climate change;
- Design and implement public policies and strategies, with the participation of these peoples and communities, to address the impacts of climate change on their territories, ways of life, cultural heritage, livelihoods, and food and water security; and
- Adopt legislative, administrative, and public policy measures necessary to protect Indigenous territory and develop short- and long-term strategies to enhance climate resilience and adaptability of these communities’ lands and homes.
In addition to reaffirming the obligation to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples—respecting their customs and traditions—the Court states that, to guarantee their rights, States must provide updated, clear, and accessible information on the potential environmental, climate-related, social, and cultural impacts of any law, policy, regulation, project, public initiative, or measure that may affect their territorial or other essential rights, including those related to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources, which are matters of public interest (see paragraphs 607–608 of AO 32).
To ensure effective implementation, the Court reminds States that they must design and carry out consultations that are not only prior and appropriate to the representative institutions of Indigenous peoples but also conducted in good faith, with the goal of reaching an informed, accessible, and appropriate agreement (paragraphs 611–612).
These considerations concerning Indigenous and tribal peoples should be read in connection with those regarding the protection of the right to political participation (section 16 of the ruling) and the rights of human rights defenders.
The Court affirms that States have a special duty to protect environmental defenders, which includes specific obligations to protect them, investigate and, if necessary, punish attacks, threats, or intimidation against them, and to counter the “criminalization” of environmental defense (section 18).
Conclusion
The discussed AO 32 adds to a growing body of case law from courts in various countries and regions, as well as to other pronouncements from international bodies and technical documents that are shaping an evolving legal framework on nature, the environment, and related rights.
The methodology used, the multitude of testimonies and analyses consulted, and the detailed legal reasoning give this Advisory Opinion considerable weight for consideration and potential implementation.
At the same time, it is expected to spark deeper debate on several of its aspects—among other reasons, due to the lack of unanimity in adopting some of its key provisions.