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 / 02 February 2026

2 February 2026 - Over the past two years, three advisory opinions on climate change 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).

IGSD tracks recent judicial decisions that reference or engage with the advisory opinions.

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.

Recent Judicial Decisions

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.

4. Chile - Request for Unconstitutionality Against the Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations Case

  • Court: Constitutional Court of Chile
  • Case Name: Request for Unconstitutionality Against the Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations,
  • Decision No.: 16625-25-CPT
  • Date: 24 July 2025
  • Link:  Access the decision here.
  • Description: A group of members of the Chilean Congress filed a request for unconstitutionality challenging various provisions of the recently approved Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations (a law intended to streamline and modernize administrative permits), arguing those provisions allegedly violated constitutional rights including environmental protection and health. The Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds; however, a powerful dissent grounded its reasoning in the Climate Emergency AO. The dissenting judges invoked the pro actione principle articulated in paragraph 543 of the AO, emphasizing that procedural rules should be interpreted to expand—not restrict—access to environmental justice. They argued that the majority’s formalism was inconsistent with Chile’s obligations under the Escazú Agreement and Chile’s position as articulated before the Inter-American Court in the  proceedings for the Climate Emergency AO. Although the complaint was rejected, the dissent marks an important step in integrating the Climate Emergency AO into Chilean constitutional interpretation and reaffirmed the judiciary’s responsibility to guard against environmental regression.

5. European Court of Human Rights – Greenpeace Nordic Case

  • Court: European Court of Human Rights
  • Case Name: Case of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway
  • Decision No.: 34068/21
  • Date: 28 October 2025
  • Link: Access the decision here. 
  • Description:  Two NGOs and six individuals complained that the Norwegian government did not sufficiently take into account potential climate impacts when issuing ten disputed petroleum production licenses, and that this violated the applicants’ rights to life and to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in paragraphs 132–35 and 322 of the judgment, cited the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the Climate Emergency as one of multiple persuasive authorities that environmental impact assessments must be conducted for projects that risk generating significant GHG emissions, and must take into account climate risks.

6. Netherlands – Bonaire Climate Case 

  • Court: District Court of The Hague
  • Case Name: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland et al. v. De Staat Der Nederlanden 
  • Decision No.: C/09/659832 / HA ZA 24-53
  • Date: 28 January 2026
  • Link:  Access the English translation of the judgment here. Access the Formal judgment (in Dutch) here.
  • Description: Eight citizens of Bonaire and Greenpeace complained that the Netherlands failed to take appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire from the effects of climate change. The Hague District Court, in paragraphs 4.7, 11.13.4, and 11.13.5 of the judgment, cited the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the Climate Emergency as one of multiple persuasive authorities on the particular vulnerability of small islands and the need to consider historical emissions, common but differentiated responsibilities, and intra- and intergenerational equity in mitigation decisions. The District Court ultimately concluded that the Netherlands had violated its obligations and ordered the State to set GHG emission reduction targets for the entire economy and to develop an adaptation plan that covers Bonaire. 

For additional information, see:

IGSD

Share
Verified by MonsterInsights