{"id":58571,"date":"2026-05-30T14:43:29","date_gmt":"2026-05-30T22:43:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/?post_type=resource&#038;p=58571"},"modified":"2026-05-30T14:49:29","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T22:49:29","slug":"iacthr_climateao_2025-2","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/resource\/iacthr_climateao_2025-2","title":{"rendered":"Emergencia clim\u00e1tica y derechos humanos, Opini\u00f3n consultiva AO 32\/25, Tribunal Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (serie A) n.\u00ba 32 (29 de mayo de 2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/resumen_seriea_32_es.pdf\">https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/resumen_seriea_32_es.pdf<\/a> (Spanish)<a href=\"https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/seriea_32_en.pdf\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/seriea_32_en.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/seriea_32_en.pdf<\/a><\/a> (English)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued an Advisory Opinion recognizing that the climate emergency poses a growing and serious threat to fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, water, food, housing, and others. <em>Climate Emergency and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion AO 32\/25, <\/em>Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 32, para. 234 (May 29, 2025). In the Advisory Opinion, the Court clarifies the scope of general human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency, States&#8217; obligations arising from substantive and procedural human rights, as well as obligations derived from the principle of equality and non-discrimination. The Court explained that States have legal obligations to adopt effective measures of prevention, mitigation, adaptation, and reparation in response to climate change, grounded in the best available science. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 236, 246, 283, 336, 343 et al.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court addresses many issues that will be of interest to lawyers working to protect the environment and human rights. Some of these issues are addressed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Standard of Enhanced Due Diligence<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court defines State obligations to reduce climate risks and to act with \u201cenhanced due diligence\u201d in the context of the climate emergency. According to the Court, this obligation mandates specific actions, including in-depth risk assessments, the adoption of preventive measures, the use of the best available science and the human rights perspective to design, implement, and monitor climate action, strict regulation and supervision of corporate due diligence, and international cooperation. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 236.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While the specific measures required to meet this standard may vary over time and align with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the Court emphasizes that the obligation of prevention applies equally to both developed and developing States, confirming that a State&#8217;s level of development does not exempt it from the fundamental duty to act with due diligence. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 237.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Right to a Healthy Environment and the emergence of the Right to a Healthy Climate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court reiterates its recognition that the right to a healthy environment is protected by the American Convention. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 270. Building upon this foundation, the Court advances at least three groundbreaking legal findings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, the Court elevates the obligation to preserve the equilibrium of the global ecosystem to a peremptory international obligation (<em>jus cogens). Id.<\/em> at para. 290. According to the Opinion, this classification arises at least from the fact that ecological equilibrium is a precondition for the lives of all species on the planet and a <em>condition sine qua non<\/em> for the enforceability of all human rights. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 293.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The prohibitions arising from the obligation to preserve our common ecosystem, as a precondition to the enjoyment of other rights that have already been identified as fundamental, are of peremptory importance and are, therefore, of a <em>jus cogens<\/em> nature.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 291.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, by recognizing the global climate system as an essential component of the environment, the Court clarifies that climate damage is a specific form of environmental damage. Therefore, compliance with the duty of prevention of environmental damage includes the obligation to adopt preventive measures regarding climate change. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 295-96.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Third, the Court recognizes the human right to a healthy climate as an independent right derived from the right to a healthy environment.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The climate system forms part of this whole and, consequently, even though it is necessarily connected to other components of the environment, its protection should be understood as a specific objective in the context of protecting the environment.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 299.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further clarifies that this distinction is not merely theoretical; it aims to provide the Inter-American legal system with a specific basis to clearly delimit State obligations regarding the climate crisis and demand compliance with climate-specific duties. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 299.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>State responsibility for transboundary climate harm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court recognizes that \u201cclimate damage, is, by definition, transboundary damage because it does not remain within the territory of the State that contributes to its production.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 295. Citing its previous Advisory Opinion 23\/17 on the human right to a healthy environment, the Court states that \u201cthe violations of treaty-based rights as a result of climate damage are subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which it originated, or which contributed to the production of the damage if there is a causal link between this fact and the violation of human rights of individuals outside its territory.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 296.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court emphasizes that State regulation must address the role of transnational corporations and financial conglomerates. States should be able to attribute legal responsibility to parent companies for the GHG emissions generated by their subsidiaries or controlled entities, regardless of where emissions occur. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 350. In addition, States must provide \u201cprompt, adequate and effective redress to individuals and States that are victims of transboundary harm resulting from activities carried out in their territories or under their jurisdiction, when there is causal link between the damage caused and the act or omission of the State of origin in relation to activities in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 551.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Need to Assess Climate Impacts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court addressed the need for environmental impact assessments to address impacts to the climate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In view of the fact that harm to the climate system constitutes environmental damage that States are obliged to prevent, environmental impact assessments should explicitly include an evaluation of the potential effects on this system. In particular, those projects or activities that pose a risk of generating significant GHG emissions should be subject to a climate impact assessment. . . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In accordance with this Court\u2019s jurisprudence, the regulation of environmental impact assessments, which should also encompass the assessment of climate impact, must be clear, at a minimum, as regards: (i) the proposed activities and the impact that must be assessed (areas and aspects to be covered); (ii) the process for conducting an environmental impact assessment (requirements and procedures steps); (iii) the responsibilities and duties of project promotors, competent authorities and decision-making bodies (responsibilities and duties); (iv) how the environmental impact assessment process to determine the climate impact and the results will be used to obtain approval of the proposed actions (relationship to decision-making), and (v) the steps and measures to be taken in the event that due process is not followed when conducting the environmental impact assessment or implementing the approval terms and conditions (compliance and implementation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this regard, [States] should consider the best available science and knowledge, the mitigation strategy and target which they should have defined previously, and the irreversible nature of climate impacts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id. <\/em>at paras. 359, 361 and 363.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When analysing the right to access to information, the Court noted that \u201cStates must produce information that enables public participation and, where applicable, the prior, free, and informed consultation of indigenous and tribal peoples, in the assessment of the environmental and climate impacts of projects or activities that may contribute to affecting the climate system&#8221;. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 514.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Embracing a Rights of Nature Approach<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In interpreting states\u2019 obligations in relation to climate and human rights, the Court notes that the right to a healthy environment protects the environmental components as legal interests in their own right. As an autonomous right,&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">. . . it protects nature, not only because of the effects that its degradation may have on other human rights, but because of its vital interdependence with other living organisms that make life on this planet possible.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 273.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court holds that recognizing Nature as a Subject of Rights is essential for a sustainable development model that respects planetary boundaries and ensures resource availability for present and future generations. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 279. The Court finds this approach to be compatible with the American Convention and anchored in the principles of <em>pro natura<\/em>, <em>pro persona, <\/em>inter-generational equity, precaution, and prevention.<em> Id.<\/em> at paras. 281-82. As the Court emphasizes, humanity must be understood as just one manifestation of Nature&#8217;s interdependent network. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 314<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Understood in this way, the right to a healthy climate relates not only to present and future generations, but also to Nature, conceived as the physical and biological foundation of life. Protection of the global climate system requires safeguarding the integrity of ecosystems and the living and non-living components. Preserving climate conditions compatible with life is essential for maintaining equilibrium and functionality within ecosystems. This reciprocal interdependence between climate stability and ecological equilibrium reinforces the need for integrated legal approach, capable of uniting the protection of human rights and the rights of Nature within a legal framework coherently aligned with the harmonious interpretation of the <em>pro persona<\/em> and <em>pro natura<\/em> principles.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 315.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ultimately, the Court observes that moving beyond traditional anthropocentrism to recognize Nature &#8211; including the climate system &#8211; as an entity entitled to autonomous legal protection strengthens the State response to the climate emergency. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 316.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The duty to regulate and implement effective mitigation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court outlines that the duty to regulate requires States to define mitigation targets, maintain human-rights based strategies, and regulate corporate behavior. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 322.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court establishes rigorous criteria for these targets, with the aim of preventing climate harm (<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 322):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8212; The 1.5\u00b0C threshold is a minimum starting point, not a final destination. When defining their mitigation targets, States must strive for the highest possible ambition to protect all persons under their jurisdiction. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 326, 331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8212; While each State should define its strategy to accomplish its targets (<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 335), the magnitude of its mitigation efforts must be determined considering historical and current cumulative contributions to climate change, technical and financial capacity, and specific national circumstances, including per capita emissions, consumption-based emissions (rather than just production), and the energy intensity of the economy. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 327-328.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8212; Mitigation targets must be enshrined in binding legal instruments, including concrete deadlines for compliance and provisions for progressive increases in ambition. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8212; States must not only set the targets but also implement binding strategies to achieve them, which includes ensuring that the measures, timelines, and resources are coherent and effective. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 335.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8212; The implementation of climate policies shall not itself result in human rights violations. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 335.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Corporate accountability and State oversight<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court, States are mandated to implement a robust regulatory framework that compels business to align with climate mitigation targets, including GHG-emitting activities and sectors both within and outside their territory. <em>Id. <\/em>at para. 337.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Legislation must require companies to identify and address human rights and environmental impacts, including climate change-related impacts, across their entire value chain. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 347. Additionally, States should compel both public and private enterprises to disclose their GHG emissions along their value chain in an accessible manner and implement measures to reduce such emissions. Finally, regulations must \u201cdiscourage greenwashing and undue corporate influence in the political and regulatory domains in this regard, and to support the actions of human rights defenders\u201d. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 347.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also highlights that States must supervise all sectors, but must impose stricter duties on companies that carry out activities generating higher GHG emissions. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 350, 353.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the context of the climate emergency, the Court notes that, although all business enterprises may contribute to compliance with mitigation targets, some of them bear greater responsibility for their impacts on climate change due to the risk created by their activities. Consequently, the Court considers that States should establish differentiated obligations with regard to climate action based on the actual and historical contribution of business enterprises to climate change, and impose stricter obligations on those whose activities are major sources of GHG emissions. Such obligations could relate, for example, to their operating conditions, tax burden, contributions to just transition plans and strategies, investment in education, and measures of adaptation or to measures to address loss and damage. The distinctions that are established should be aimed at putting into practice the polluter pays principle and ensuring the effectiveness of domestic mitigation measures. The Court also stresses the importance of ensuring that the relevant regulations take into consideration the role played by the different components of financial conglomerates and transnational corporations, so that States can attribute legal responsibilities to the parent companies, or those that exercise control over others, based on the greenhouse gas emissions generated by their subsidiaries or the companies they control.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 350.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To ensure compliance, the Court notes that States must maintain independent and robust judicial and administrative mechanisms equipped with the necessary technical capacity. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 354. The power to investigate and punish non-compliance includes the authority to order the cessation of activities that violate climate norms and to ensure effective compensation for damages caused to the global climate system. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 356.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>States obligation regarding climate adaptation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court emphasizes that climate adaptation measures are essential for protecting human rights within the context of climate emergency. The Court found that the State&#8217;s duty to implement adaptation measures is progressive and tied to a State&#8217;s specific resources, while the legal requirement to design and maintain an updated national adaptation plan is of immediate enforceability. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 384.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Adaptation measures must be suitable to build long-term resilience of communities and ecosystems. According to the Court, these measures must empower society to \u201canticipate, reduce, accomodate, or recover from climate change effects in a timely and efficient manner&#8221;.&nbsp; <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 385. Regarding national plans, the Court finds that, while their definition, updating, and prioritization must be determined by the competent national authorities, a holistic approach that balances urgent needs with long-term goals and \u201cstructural causes of vulnerability\u201d must be adopted. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 386.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also elaborates on specific adaptation obligations derived from a broad spectrum of substantive rights. This requires States to protect not only the rights to life, personal integrity, and health but also to ensure the rights to private and family life, property, and housing. The Court extends this duty to guarantee freedom of residence and movement, access to food and water, and the safeguarding of work, social security, culture, and education against climate-related disruptions. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 392-457.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Right to science and to the Recognition of Local, Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court defines the \u201cright to science\u201d as both a substantive and procedural right, that entitles all individuals to a non-discriminatory access to scientific progress and the opportunity to contribute to scientific activity.<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 473. In this regard, States must foster \u201can environment conducive to the preservation, development, and dissemination of science and technology\u201d, ensure that technological innovations do not harm vulnerable groups, and promote science education. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 474.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also points out that scientific knowledge coexists with other forms of knowledge, such as local, traditional and indigenous knowledge. Traditional or ancestral knowledge encompasses the concepts, skills, innovations, practices, and philosophies that indigenous, local or other communities have developed over generations as a result of their intellectual activity, experiences and spiritual beliefs, in &#8211; or from a traditional context, thanks to their interaction with their natural environment. Local knowledge, in turn, refers to skills developed by individuals and populations that are specific to the places where they live. Finally, indigenous knowledge encompasses all the knowledge that these peoples possess about their relationships and practices with their environment; this forms part of their collective intellectual heritage and is an integral part of their cultural systems, constituting the basis for decision-making on fundamental aspects of life, from everyday activities to long-term actions.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 476.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court highlights that climate measures should be guided by a \u201cdialogue that explores the connections between various knowledge systems\u201d, facilitating the integration of the best available science with local, traditional and Indigenous knowledge, and ensuring mutual learning and respect for different epistemological frameworks. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 480. In this sense, States must protect local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, take measures to protect Indigenous rights, and actively support the collection and integration of these diverse knowledge systems into climate strategies. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 484.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the Court defines \u201cscientific knowledge\u201d as \u201cthe result of the objective study &#8211; carried out individually or collectively &#8211; of observed phenomena, as well as its validation, through the exchange of conclusions and data and peer review, in order to discover and comprehend the chain of causalities, relationships or interactions.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 485. The Court reinforces that States have the duty to adopt the best available science in environmental matters as a corollary to their duty to disseminate the benefits of science. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 484. Specifically, the Court notes that \u201ccurrently the best science available on climate change is compiled in the IPCC reports&#8221;. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 487.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Right to Access to Information<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Access to information enables democratic control over State actions. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 488.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court explains that access to information is a fundamental condition for protecting substantive rights such as life, health, and a healthy environment and climate. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 500. Under the \u201cobligation of active transparency\u201d States have the duty to provide the public with the maximum amount of information necessary for individuals to exercise other rights. This information must be comprehensive, updated, and delivered in accessible languages and formats. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 489.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court has emphasized that, for the purposes of access to information, any activities and projects that could have an environmental impact, including the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in the territories of indigenous or tribal communities, are matters of clear public interest. Additionally, the Court has noted that access to information is intrinsically linked to public participation in sustainable development and environmental protection.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 491.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the climate context, States must move beyond disclosure and take an active role in the <em>ex officio <\/em>production of information, which includes establishing robust systems for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information relevant to protect human rights. This includes the necessary data to define, implement and update&nbsp; mitigation and adaptation strategies, and developing \u201cearly warning systems\u201d to provide timely alerts on disaster risks. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 503.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court discusses the origin, quality, and methodology for producing such information, underscoring the need to \u201cintegrate diverse forms of knowledge to inform solutions\u201d, \u201cpromote and support participatory research and data collection\u201d, among other things. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 506. The Court asserts that States are not only obligated to produce and disseminate climate data but must also mandate transparency from the private sector. This includes requiring companies to disclose information regarding their climate impact, measures adopted to prevent human rights violations in the context of the climate emergency, investments in renewable energy, and internal mitigation policies and plans. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 500, 516. Furthermore,&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">States must adopt the necessary legislative measures and implement all mechanisms required to ensure that businesses and all private actors engaging in activities relevant to the causes and impacts of climate change produce and disclose, in a clear, comprehensive, timely, and free manner, all information related to such activities. This information includes that relating to the ownership of companies, their environmental and climate impact; their internal plans and policies concerning mitigation and just transition; contracts, concessions, agreements, or other documents involving public resources.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 516.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court defines a list of information that States are mandated to produce and disclose to ensure effective climate action. This includes information \u201cconcerning the causes and effects of climate change, the measures implemented by the State to mitigate its emissions and adapt to its impacts, environmental impact studies including climate impact assessments, as well as the mechanisms in place for accessing information, public participation, and climate-related justice.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 507, 519. It also includes establishing a \u201csystem of indicators\u201d to measure progress toward sustainable development and collecting disaggregated socioeconomic data on climate impacts. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 508. In addition, States must provide the scientific and technical basis for their mitigation targets, explicitly demonstrating how their domestic targets align with the 1.5\u00b0C global warming limit and IPCC reduction pathways. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 509.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding adaptation, information should focus on vulnerability, risk exposure, and projected impacts on human systems and infrastructure, including disaster risk assessments. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 511, 513. According to the Court, States must also collect, produce, and analyse data \u201con current and projected impacts of climate change on life, personal integrity, and health, taking into account socioeconomic factors\u201d. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 512.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the Court stresses the importance of financial transparency, requiring States to report on public funds allocated to climate action and the specific use of resources received through international cooperation. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 515.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court points out that States are required to implement \u201ccomprehensive mechanisms for disseminating climate information, including early warning systems, public databases, digital tools\u201d and more, to enable citizens to exercise oversight over State actions and omissions. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 521.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also notes that States have the duty to regulate media outlets and online platforms, and adopt progressive measures to counter climate disinformation, ensuring that access to information and substantive rights remain protected. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 517, 527. In this sense, States must ensure that \u201cinformation related to the climate emergency issued by public authorities is clear, accurate, reliable, accessible, and timely&#8221;. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 525.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, considering the decisive role played in this area by businesses, digital technology developers, technology platforms, social media networks, and the media, the Court emphasises the necessity for States to collaborate with such actors, in line with the Pact for the Future, in order to strengthen media and information literacy. Such collaboration must aim to ensure that users acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to interact critically, safely, and consciously with digital content. 932 In sum, the Court underscores that access to truthful and reliable information in the context of the climate emergency requires the joint commitment of both States and private actors to prevent and counter disinformation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 529.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Right to Public Participation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Grounded in international instruments such as the Escaz\u00fa Agreement and the Aarhus Convention, the Court highlights that participation must commence at the earliest stages of decision-making to ensure that the public effectively influences the design of environmental projects and policies. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 533, 538. In climate matters, the Court notes that public participation extends to every stage of climate governance, from defining mitigation targets to designing adaptation and risk management plans, climate finance, international cooperation and reparation frameworks. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 535.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court, to ensure this right is effective, States must establish or adapt mechanisms to guarantee \u201cthe broadest involvement of the public\u201d without discrimination. The Court places a particular emphasis on prioritizing communities and Indigenous peoples who are disproportionately affected by climate change or by the measures taken to address it. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 536. Drawing from the <em>La Oroya vs. Peru <\/em>precedent<em>, <\/em>the Court underscores that participation mechanisms must be \u201cvaried and adapted\u201d in their duration and form to meet the specific needs of vulnerable groups. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 538.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this regard, when the adverse effects of the climate emergency or the measures adopted by the State or private individuals in response thereto may affect the rights of a specific group, it is imperative that such group be afforded an effective opportunity to be heard and to participate in decision-making. Accordingly, the design of participation mechanisms must take into account the characteristics and needs of vulnerable population groups in order to ensure that their participation occurs under equal conditions.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 538.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Court reinforces the inclusive approach to decision-making that incorporates \u201ctraditional, local, and indigenous knowledge\u201d alongside with the \u201cbest available science\u201d, which requires the active involvement of \u201cAfro-descendant, peasant, and fishing communities\u201d, and \u201cindependent scientists, organisations, and institutions&#8221;. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 539.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Right to Access to Justice<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court recalls that providing effective judicial remedies and ensuring due process are essential obligations in the context of the climate emergency. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 540. To make access to justice a reality, States must equip their judicial systems with sufficient technical and financial resources, which includes providing ongoing and interdisciplinary training for judges on climate change, its causes and human rights impacts, legal tools and applicable standards to face it. Furthermore, States must consider the creation of specialized environmental and climate bodies, as well as free legal assistance for those in vulnerable situations who cannot afford the costs of climate litigation. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 542.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the climate context, the Court highlights the <em>pro actione <\/em>principle, which mandates that procedural rules must be interpreted in the manner most favorable to access to justice. In this sense, \u201cinterpretation most favorable to access to justice must always prevail\u201d and judicial bodies must prevent formal requirements from becoming unjustified obstacles to hearing and ruling climate claims submitted in accordance with the law. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 543.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court reinforces the requirement of a \u201creasonable time\u201d for resolving climate cases. Grounding on its own jurisprudence, the Court reminds that \u201creasonable time must be determined based on factors such as (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the impact on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings.\u201d<em>Id.<\/em> at para. 543. However, in the context of the climate emergency, the Court adds that \u201cthe imminence of the risks that motivate the legal action, the urgency of the measures required in accordance with litigation claims, the impact of inaction on the human rights of the petitioners, and the situation of particular vulnerability in which they may find themselves vis-\u00e0-vis the impacts of climate change\u201d must also be considered by the courts. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 545.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the active legal standing, the Court considers that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">in light of the urgency, gravity, and complexity of the climate emergency, judicial authorities must apply the pro actione principle with respect to the admissibility of actions, appeals filed, and requirements regarding standing that could undermine the guarantee of the right of access to justice in collective and individual claims.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 546.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court emphasizes that the collective nature of climate change requires States to move forward in creating procedural mechanisms to allow \u201cbroad forms of standing, such as procedural institutions of collective, public, or popular standing. . . . without the need to demonstrate an individual interest or impact.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 549. While States may retain requirements for direct standing in individual actions, the Court stresses that they must facilitate access to justice for those impacted by climate change and insufficient state action. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 550.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court acknowledges that the inherent complexity of climate litigation means that a strict application of traditional evidentiary rules can become an \u201cunjustified obstacle to effective access to justice. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 552. Judicial authorities are therefore required to adopt a flexible approach that accounts for the unique challenges of this field, such as the difficulty of proving casual links and the &#8220;asymmetry in the control of and access to probative elements\u201d. The Court calls for an interpretation of the rules based on \u201cthe principles of availability of evidence, and procedural cooperation, <em>pro persona<\/em>, <em>pro natura<\/em> and <em>pro actione<\/em>.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 552.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To address the evidentiary barriers, the Court requires the adoption of alternative standards that allow the causal relationship to be established through the best available science, \u201cwithout necessarily requiring proof of a direct causal link&#8221;. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 553. This approach also calls for&nbsp; a detailed assessment of the possible asymmetries between the parties, which can be addressed with measures such as the reversal of the burden of proof. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 554.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this regard, the Court draws attention to the possibility of presuming the causal link between GHG emissions and the degradation of the climate system, as well as the one that exists between this degradation and the resulting risks for natural systems and people.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id.<\/em> at para. 553.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In line with Inter-American standards, the Court recalls that reparation must go beyond mere pecuniary compensation to include diverse measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 556. In the climate context, these measures should be adapted to the nature of climate harm, grounded in the best available science, and aimed at \u201cenhancing the adaptation and resilience capabilities of the individuals affected and ecosystems impacted\u201d. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 557, 559. The Court asserts that States must establish effective administrative and judicial mechanisms to ensure that victims of climate-related harm have access to \u201ccomprehensive redress\u201d, and follow-up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of reparation measures. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 557, 559.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Equity, vulnerability and combating poverty<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the main ethical pillars of the Inter-American Court&#8217;s Advisory Opinion is the connection between the climate emergency, multidimensional poverty and inequality. The Court establishes that climate change directly compromises the essential rights, goods and services required for a dignified life, such as water, food, housing, health, education, etc. <em>Id.<\/em> at paras. 242, 623. Therefore, it demands that States allocate the \u201cmaximum available resources\u201d to protect those disproportionately exposed to climate impacts. <em>Id.<\/em> at para. 242.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court, the principle of equity requires an \u201cequitable distribution of the burden of climate action and climate impacts\u201d, avoiding the imposition of disproportionate burdens on both future and present generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The former may occur if, for example, climate action is unjustifiably postponed, leaving the damage and cost to future generations. The latter would happen if, for example, the costs of the energy transition are allocated without taking into account the vulnerability of certain groups of the population today. <em>. . .&nbsp;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court notes that, even though international human rights law recognizes that everyone is a possessor of non-derogable rights, the ethical and legislative grounds for this transcend those who inhabit the planet today, extending also to humanity as a legal and moral community that endures over time.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id<\/em>. at paras. 310-311.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Beyond traditionally protected groups &#8211; such as children, women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous and tribal peoples, Afro-descendants, and peasants &#8211; the Court recognizes \u201cnew forms of vulnerability\u201d. This includes people living in coastal areas threatened by rising sea levels, people deprived of liberty, workers in the informal sector or in industries disrupted by energy transition. <em>Id<\/em>. at paras. 596, 628, 629. In this regard, the Court finds that States should design and implement measures to ensure people living in poverty can access the resources needed for a decent life while also \u201cprogressively eradicating the causes that perpetuate and increase climate-related vulnerability\u201d.&nbsp; <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 626. Ultimately, the Court emphasizes that recognizing the evolving vulnerabilities is essential to guaranteeing the effectiveness of human rights and ensuring a \u201cjust and inclusive transition\u201d. <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 629.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Just transition<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In several parts of the Opinion, the Court underscores that States must promote a transition centered on sustainable development as the primary means to guarantee the progressive realization of human rights. <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 369. To ensure the transition is truly just, States must account for the inequality in the production of GHG emissions and strive for an equitable distribution of economic and environmental burdens arising from mitigation measures, rooted in the principle \u201cthose who cause most pollution pay the most&#8221;. <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 341.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court warns that the shift to clean energy must not lead to new violations, highlighting the need to protect human rights during the extraction of rare and critical minerals required for the energy transition. <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 342. A just transition also mandates labor and social policies, including the design of strategies to address potential job losses and worker displacement in vulnerable sectors and those working informally.&nbsp; <em>Id<\/em>. at para. 447.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In particular, the Court emphasizes the importance of States ensuring that the measures implemented within the framework of a just climate-related transition do not intensify the situation of multidimensional poverty; to the contrary, they should be used as an opportunity to integrate those concerned and to allow them to enjoy their rights fully by access to new sustainable work options, to enhanced local capabilities, and to the promotion of community projects that protect their livelihoods and means of subsistence, and promote their well-being and resilience in the face of the climate emergency. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Id<\/em>. at para. 627.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/resumen_seriea_32_es.pdf (Spanish) https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/opiniones\/seriea_32_en.pdf (English) In 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued an Advisory Opinion recognizing that the climate emergency poses a growing and serious threat to fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, water, food, housing, and others. Climate Emergency and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion AO 32\/25, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[34,35,30484,43,52,2026,57,58,63,153,2010,74,30485,239,78,80,30493,2052,94,2043,30482,2031],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30101,30103],"region":[533,534,539,541],"class_list":["post-58571","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-information","resource-topic-access-to-justice","resource-topic-advisory-opinions","resource-topic-climate-change","resource-topic-courts","resource-topic-defending-defenders","resource-topic-economics","resource-topic-ecosystem-services","resource-topic-environmental-justice","resource-topic-greenhouse-gases","resource-topic-healthy-environment","resource-topic-human-rights","resource-topic-iacthr-ao-32-25-29-may-2025","resource-topic-inter-american-human-rights-system","resource-topic-international-courts-and-tribunals","resource-topic-international-treaties","resource-topic-mitigation","resource-topic-pivotal-cases","resource-topic-procedural-issues","resource-topic-right-to","resource-topic-rights-of-nature","resource-topic-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-1","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-climate","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-caribbean","region-central-america","region-north-america","region-south-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/58571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=58571"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=58571"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=58571"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=58571"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=58571"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}