opinion

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency - opinion

Litigation

Sabin

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency - Other

petition

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency - petition

points of claim

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency - points of claim

decision

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency - decision

Filing Year For Action

On January 9, 2023, Chile and Colombia signed a joint advisory opinion request to be presented before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), aiming to clarify the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency under the frame of international human rights law. The request acknowledged the human rights effects of the climate emergency, especially highlighting the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems in Latin America. In this line, Colombia and Chile emphasized the need for regional standards to accelerate action to confront climate change. The applicants mentioned the Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 requested by Colombia, where the IACtHR recognized the right to a healthy environment and the relation between environment and human rights. The request identifies the IACtHR as the suitable body to determine guidelines for creating and implementing climate policies based on a human rights approach. 

Colombia and Chile's petition refers to various topics. First, the applicants asked about the state obligations derived from preventing and guaranteeing human rights to confront climate emergencies. In this sense, the applicants enquired the Court about the scope of the prevention duty of states against extreme and slow onset climate effects in the light of the Paris Agreement and the scientific consensus not to trespass the 1.5 degrees of global temperature. Along the same line, the applicants asked about which actions states should take against the damages provoked by climate impacts and which differentiated measures should be taken to protect vulnerable communities. Specifically, Colombia and Chile requested the Court to refer to actions regarding regulation, monitoring, environmental impact assessment, contingency plans and mitigation of activities that can worsen the climate emergency. In this line, the applicants asked the IACtHR about the principles that should 'inspire' these actions, especially regarding adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage. 

Second, the requesting states focused on the state obligation to preserve the right to life against the climate emergency in the light of human rights and science standards. Here, the applicants requested an opinion regarding the scope of substantive and procedural obligations on human rights and the environment. The applicants especially asked the Court about the importance of protecting the right to access information to guarantee other human rights, such as the right to life, property, health and participation. 

Third, the applicants requested an opinion from the Court to clarify the differentiated obligations of the states to protect the rights of children and future generations from climate change. Here, Colombia and Chile mentioned articles 1, 4, 5, 11 and 19 of the American Convention and asked about the nature and scope of the right of children to access justice to present judicial actions for preventing potentially damaging effects of climate change. 

Fourth, following the clarification of the scope of procedural obligations, Chile and Colombia asked the IACtHR to clarify the nature of the obligations of the states to provide judicial actions for adequate protection and reparation of the rights affected by the climate emergency. In the same sense, the applicants asked about the necessity to implement the obligation to consult for the climate consequences of certain activities.

Fifth, the applicants focused on environmental defenders' protection, referring to the American Convention and the Escazú Agreement. Here, the applicants focused on the obligations that states should comply with for protecting environmental defenders, especially indigenous people and women, for protecting ecosystems in the context of the climate emergency. 

Finally, Colombia and Chile focused on asking the IACtHR about the cooperation between states to confront climate change in the region, especially to clarify the shared and differentiated obligations amongst the region's nations. Here, the questions highlight the need for guidelines to clarify states' role in guaranteeing reparation measures by considering equity and climate justice principles. In addition, the applicants enquired about their actions to confront the migration triggered and exacerbated by climate effects in the region.   

In April and May of 2024, the court held three public hearings in Barbados, Brasilia, and Manaus. The hearings drew testimonies from scientists, affected communities, and civil society. 

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court published Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the human rights obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency. In the opinion, the Court affirms that States have obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Protocol of San Salvador to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the human rights impacts of climate change. The Court explicitly recognizes that the right to a healthy environment includes the right to a stable climate and that exceeding 1.5°C of global warming would threaten the enjoyment of multiple human rights. It emphasizes that State obligations extend to both individual and collective dimensions, and may include responsibility for cross-border harm where a causal link is established. States must adopt effective mitigation and adaptation measures aligned with climate science, regulate private actors, and cooperate with other States, particularly under principles of equity and differentiated responsibility.

The opinion also underscores the need for procedural safeguards—including access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and highlights special protections owed to Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, children, environmental defenders, and future generations. The Court draws on the Escazú Agreement, the Paris Agreement, and other international instruments as interpretive sources. 

Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency