Home » News » Judicial Responses to the Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency

Judicial Responses to the Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency

IGSD / 10 October 2025

10 October 2025 - Three advisory opinions on climate change have clarified state obligations under international law: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and the Law of the Sea (May 2024); the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on Human Rights and the Climate Emergency (May 2025); and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change (July 2025).

Below we include recent judicial decisions that reference or engage with the advisory opinions, starting with three recent decisions that reference the Inter-American and the International Court of Justice’s opinion.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory Opinion on Human Rights and the Climate Emergency (OC-32/25, 3 July 2025)

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its groundbreaking legal opinion on July 3, 2025, declaring that States have a wide range of human rights obligations to address what the Court unanimously agreed to be a real and escalating climate emergency. In order to protect and guarantee multiple human rights including the newly articulated right to a healthy climate, States must undertake urgent and effective actions on mitigation, adaptation, and progress toward sustainable development through a lens of resilience and human rights.

For additional information, see:

Recent Judicial Decisions that Engage with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Important note: Under the Inter-American Court’s doctrine of ‘conventionality control,’ all domestic authorities—in judicial, legislative, and executive functions—of States which have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights have a legal obligation to ensure that their laws and policies conform to the Convention as interpreted by the Court. This includes the Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, which constitutes the most authoritative interpretation of States’ human rights obligations under the Convention and other relevant and related treaties, in the context of climate change. The items below show recent examples of how courts are already engaging with the new international jurisprudence.

1.    Colombia – Santurbán Páramo Case

  • Court: Tribunal Administrativo de Santander [Administrative Court of Santander]
  • Case Name: Municipio de Bucaramanga y otros con Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y otros [Municipality of Bucaramanga et al. v. Ministry of the Environment et al.]
  • Decision No.: 680012333000-2018-00196-00
  • Date: 21 July 2025
  • Link: Access the decision here.  
  • Description: The Administrative Tribunal of Santander recognized the Santurbán páramo, a high-altitude wetland ecosystem in the Colombian Andes, as a subject of rights, ordering the Ministry of Environment to serve as its legal representative and prohibiting new mining licenses in the region. In a groundbreaking move, the Tribunal relied on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the Climate Emergency, particularly on its recognition of states’ obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nature as a rights-bearing entity. This judgment set an important precedent by directly linking international climate jurisprudence with national environmental protection in Colombia.

2.    Brazil – Candiota Coal Mine and Powerplant Case

  • Court: 9ª Vara Federal de Porto Alegre [9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre]
  • Case Name: Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN y Núcleo Amigos da Terra v. Uniao Federal et al. [Instituto Preservar et al. v. Federal Union et al.]
  • Decision No.: 5050920-75.2023.4.04.7100
  • Date: 22 August 2025
  • Link: Access the decision here.  
  • Description: This structural climate litigation was brought before the Federal Court in Rio Grande do Sul against the Candiota coal mine and the Candiota III coal-fired power plant, one of Brazil’s most polluting coal plants. The Court suspended their environmental licenses until climate considerations are incorporated into the licensing process, mandated the Union and the State to present a Just Energy Transition Plan for the coal sector, and required democratic participation in climate governance bodies. The judgment drew on the precautionary principle, the Paris Agreement, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the Climate Emergency, marking a landmark integration of international climate law into domestic environmental governance.

3.    Canada – Wet’suwet’en Climate Case

  • Court: Federal Court of Canada
  • Case Name: Dini Ze’ Lho’imggin v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada
  • Decision No.: T-211-20, 2025 FC 1586
  • Date: 26 September 2025
  • Link: Access the decision here.
  • Description: Two Wet’suwet’en houses filed a constitutional climate challenge alleging that Canada’s greenhouse gas policies violated their rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter. The Federal Court held that the claim was justiciable and could potentially rest on novel causes of action grounded in customary international law, citing the International Court of Justice’s 2025 Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. However, the claim was struck for being overly broad—implicating nearly 1,900 statutory provisions—though leave to amend was granted. This ruling is a pioneering step in recognizing climate litigation as justiciable within Canada’s constitutional framework and international advisory opinions.
IGSD

Share
Verified by MonsterInsights