The IACHR’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Human Rights

Access resource

Days after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released its advisory opinion on the climate emergency, CLX convened experts to examine its implications for climate rights and State obligations. The discussion explores the opinion’s treatment of future generations, corporate regulation, science, and access to justice—and the questions advocates must address as they put it into practice.

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights. Requested by Colombia and Chile, the opinion sets out how States’ human rights obligations apply to the causes and impacts of climate change. CLX, which participated in the advisory process through written submissions and oral hearings, convened this webinar to examine the opinion shortly after its release.

César Rodríguez-Garavito, David Boyd, Elisa Morgera, and Theresa Amor-Juergenssen discuss how the opinion builds on two decades of rights-based climate litigation. They examine the Court’s recognition of a right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment, and its attention to the interests of present and future generations and Nature. The conversation also addresses the Court’s more detailed guidance on mitigation, adaptation, corporate regulation, and access to justice.

The panel considers how the opinion’s standards could be put to work. Morgera discusses State duties to regulate business emissions, require due diligence, and address climate disinformation. Amor-Juergenssen reflects on the role of young people in the advisory process and on the need for participation and legal procedures that can account for future generations. Boyd examines the right to a healthy climate and its connection to the protection of ecosystems. The speakers also explore the Court’s treatment of the right to science, including the importance of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge in climate decision-making.

The discussion is attentive to what remains unresolved. Panelists call for clearer action on fossil fuels, corporate responsibility, and compensation for climate-related loss and damage. They also consider how advocates, governments, and courts can translate the opinion into domestic law and practice.

In addition to discussing the landmark ruling, this webinar also marks the launch of Climate Change on Trial, an open-access book – written by César Rodríguez-Garavito and based on CLX’s original case database – that tells the twenty-year rise and global diffusion of human rights-based climate change litigation, which ultimately culminated in the IACtHR’s advisory opinion.

Highlights

What is this webinar about?

The webinar examines Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights interprets States’ obligations in the climate emergency. Convened days after the opinion was released, the discussion considers what its recognition of climate-related rights means for government action and future litigation. The panel also asks how its legal standards can be implemented and where further development is needed.

The panel addresses the right to a healthy climate; States’ duties to mitigate emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and regulate businesses; the participation of young people and affected communities; access to justice; and the role of scientific, local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge. It concludes by examining implementation and questions the speakers believe the opinion leaves open, particularly fossil fuels and loss and damage.

The webinar includes a discussion of Rodríguez-Garavito’s book, Climate Change on Trial: Mobilizing Human Rights Litigation to Accelerate Climate Action, which traces the global development of rights-based climate litigation.

What does the right to a healthy climate add to human rights law?

The Court recognized a right to a healthy climate as part of the right to a healthy environment. In the webinar, Boyd and Amor-Juergenssen discuss its significance for people living with climate harm now, for future generations, and for Nature. They explain that the opinion treats a stable climate as a condition for the enjoyment of other rights and connects climate protection with the health of ecosystems.

What does the opinion say States must do about corporate conduct?

The opinion calls on States to regulate and supervise businesses whose activities contribute to climate change. As Morgera explains, this includes requiring climate and human rights due diligence, disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, and measures to reduce them, while addressing greenwashing and undue corporate influence. She also argues that future legal work should clarify the responsibilities of major fossil fuel companies more specifically.

Why is the opinion’s treatment of adaptation significant?

Rodríguez-Garavito observes that climate litigation has historically devoted much more attention to reducing emissions than to protecting people from impacts already occurring. The webinar discusses the opinion’s guidance on adaptation as a significant response to that gap. It connects adaptation to States’ duties to assess risks, reduce vulnerability, and protect people and ecosystems, particularly where climate harms are already severe.

How did youth participation shape the discussion of future generations?

Amor-Juergenssen describes the participation of young people and youth-led organizations in the Court’s written and oral proceedings. She sees their advocacy reflected in the opinion’s attention to intergenerational equity and to decisions made today that will shape the lives of younger and future generations. The panel also discusses how participation and access to justice can better account for those interests when climate policies are made or challenged.

Why does the webinar focus on the right to science?

Morgera explains that effective climate decisions depend on access to reliable knowledge and on the ability of people to contribute to it. She emphasizes the opinion’s recognition of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge alongside other scientific approaches. For the panel, this has practical implications for who participates in research and policymaking, how solutions are developed, and how States respond to climate disinformation.

What remains unresolved, and who would benefit from watching?

The panelists identify several areas requiring further work. Boyd calls attention to the opinion’s limited explicit treatment of fossil fuel phaseout and compensation for climate-related loss and damage. Morgera points to questions about the responsibilities of major emitters, while Rodríguez-Garavito urges continued attention to adaptation, corporate accountability, and the relationship between human rights and the protection of Nature. The webinar is useful for lawyers, judges, advocates, researchers, and policymakers considering how to apply the opinion in litigation and climate policy.

Can I cite or reference this resource in my own work?

Yes. CLX resources are open-access and may be cited with attribution. If you plan to reproduce substantial portions of the text or figures, please reach out to our team first.

Is this resource peer-reviewed?

Reports and working papers go through internal review by CLX researchers and, where noted, external subject-matter experts. Educational materials and commentary are reviewed for accuracy but are not formally peer-reviewed academic publications.

How current is the legal analysis in this resource?

Climate litigation moves quickly, and case law referenced here reflects the state of play at the time of publication. Where a resource is part of an ongoing series or learning kit, later installments may reflect more recent developments.

Can I use this material for teaching or training?

Absolutely — many of our resources, including learning kits and video series, are designed for classroom and clinic use. Non-commercial educational use is encouraged; contact us for permissions on commercial training programs.