In a groundbreaking advisory opinion released on July 3, 2025, the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) declared that a stable climate constitutes a fundamental human right and imposed urgent duties on states to protect it. This historic ruling—prompted by a 2023 request from Colombia and Chile—addresses the intersection of environmental degradation and human rights, arguing that states must take “urgent and effective” measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, combat climate disinformation, and ensure a just transition to cleaner economies.
Based in Costa Rica, the IACHR conducted extensive public hearings in Barbados, Brasília, and Manaus, alongside over 260 written submissions. Court President Nancy Hernández López emphasized that climate change poses “extraordinary risks” to the most vulnerable populations—underscoring that “there is no margin for indifference”. The more than 300-page document interprets existing international, regional, and national legal frameworks to confirm that protecting the climate is a binding human rights obligation for all 35 Organization of American States (OAS) members—including the US and Canada—even though only 20 have formally recognized the IACHR’s jurisdiction.
A key innovation of this opinion is the formal recognition of the right to a healthy and stable climate—a historic expansion of the previously recognized right to a healthy environment. States are now legally mandated to regulate emissions from both public and private entities. The court specifically targeted high-polluting sectors—fossil fuels, cement, agro-industry—urging stricter regulations, carbon pricing, and accountability for past and ongoing emissions. Governments are encouraged to pass national laws holding transnational corporations accountable for subsidiary-level emissions.
The advisory opinion also calls for ecosystem restoration and the legal acknowledgment of nature’s rights. It urges states to prioritize adaptation, incorporate Indigenous knowledge into climate responses, and guard against climate disinformation. Moreover, it expressly affirms the protection of environmental defenders, urging states to shield activists from threats, punish perpetrators, and guarantee access to justice. As noted by CIEL’s Luisa Gómez, the court’s findings draw a “critical connection” between individual rights and ecosystem integrity.
Despite its advisory nature, the opinion carries substantial authority and is expected to steer climate litigation and policymaking across the Americas. Legal experts describe it as a “blueprint for action” and a powerful precedent that could shape upcoming proceedings at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, this November. It follows recent climate rulings by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (which recognized CO₂ as marine pollutants) and precedes expected opinions from the ICJ and Africa’s human rights court.
Civil society responses have been enthusiastic. Nikki Reisch of CIEL hailed the ruling as a “legal milestone,” asserting that it places climate destruction squarely within the realm of human rights infringement. Meanwhile, environmental defenders and Indigenous advocates see this as a structural opportunity to promote equitable climate policies that address historical injustices .
In sum, while technically non-binding, the IACHR’s advisory opinion marks a pivotal shift in international law. It transforms climate protection from a moral imperative into a legal obligation, reinforcing state and corporate accountability, amplifying Indigenous and environmental voices, and laying the groundwork for future legal and political actions. As nations prepare for COP30 and beyond, this ruling underscores that safeguarding a stable climate is no longer an optional policy choice—it is a human right duty.
