CIVICUS speaks with Manuel Páez Ramírez, coordinator of the Espeletia Legal Clinic at the Externado University of Colombia, about the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) recent advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights.

In January 2023, the governments of Chile and Colombia asked the IACtHR to clarify states’ obligations in the face of the climate crisis. Its response came in July with an advisory opinion that should enable civil society to push for more effective action on climate change. The court recognised the right to a healthy and stable climate and required states to prevent, mitigate and adapt to climate change, repair damage and guarantee the participation in decision-making of Indigenous communities, Afro-descendants, women and other excluded groups.

Why is the court’s advisory opinion important for climate justice?

This decision is the most comprehensive and ambitious analysis of the climate crisis undertaken by an international court. Rather than issuing general statements, the Inter-American Court constructed a comprehensive legal framework ranging from scientific diagnosis to the specific obligations of states.

The opinion begins by establishing the scientific basis, identifying the causes of the climate crisis and its devastating effects on ecosystems, species and human populations and reviewing existing international commitments. This characterisation of the problem is key because it provides evidence that can be invoked in future judicial and political decisions.

Most significantly, however, it addresses the most complex question: what exactly are the obligations of states on climate issues under the American Convention on Human Rights? In doing so, the document clarifies and systematises existing obligations under international law, providing a roadmap for states’ responsibilities.

What types of obligations did the court identify?

The court developed a three-tiered system of obligations that radically transforms the landscape of climate responsibility.

The first tier comprises general obligations such as respect, protection, domestic law adaptation and international cooperation.

The second sets out substantive obligations, linked to fundamental rights such as the right to life, health, culture and a healthy environment. Here the court reinforced existing mechanisms such as nationally determined contributions – the plans states must submit to cut emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. It stipulates that these must include more ambitious targets, be incorporated into binding rules, establish clear deadlines, be reviewed periodically and be gradually strengthened.

Third, procedural obligations guarantee people’s participation, access to scientific information and the right to justice.

The most revolutionary element is the recognition of the right to a healthy and stable climate as an autonomous right, which reinforces states’ obligation to protect the global climate system. Until now, many judges have questioned the legal force of climate commitments. This opinion changes the landscape by connecting pronouncements by the United Nations, the European system and national courts with the rights protected by the American Convention. It establishes specific duties, the violation of which may result in international liability.

The court defined ‘climate damage’ as any transboundary impact on the climate system that a state has contributed to. To prevent this, it ordered the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the design of mitigation strategies and the strict regulation of companies that degrade the environment.

A crucial idea is that states must act with ‘enhanced due diligence’ when preventing and identifying risks and taking preventive measures, even in the worst-case scenarios. They must also constantly monitor their policies to avoid creating new vulnerabilities.

This drastically reduces the possibility of evading responsibility. States could only be exempted if they could demonstrate they truly lack the means to mitigate climate damage or protect vulnerable populations.

What role did civil society play in the process?

This was the most participatory decision in the history of the IACtHR, reflected in the quality and depth of its recommendations. Indigenous peoples, peasant communities, young people, women’s organisations and LGBTQI+ groups were able to testify directly before the court about the impacts of climate change on their lives, cultures and livelihoods.

The court recognised the importance of ensuring participation at all stages of climate policy and it valued local and ancestral knowledge as valid sources for understanding the crisis and designing solutions in dialogue with western science.

The court incorporated several key recommendations from civil society and academia, including judicial training on climate issues, the creation of specialised courts, the expansion of standing to sue, the relaxation of evidentiary rules and comprehensive reparations that include measures of satisfaction, rehabilitation and non-repetition.

What impact could this decision have?

This opinion is a veritable manual for climate litigation. It sets the minimum standard states must meet and applies to all states that have ratified the American Convention, enabling climate defenders and civil society organisations to invoke it in national and international proceedings.

To maximise its impact, we are already working to spread awareness. Alongside organisations such as the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, the Espeletia Legal Clinic is organising a workshop on climate litigation, and we have incorporated the court’s decision into our Diploma in Climate Change and Human Rights.

The influence of this decision may extend beyond the region. Given the Inter-American Court’s reputation and the scientific rigour of this decision, it is highly likely to become a reference for other regional and international courts, contributing to the establishment of global standards on climate justice.