Introduction
Back in January 2023, the governments of Chile and Colombia requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) for an advisory opinion on how States must respond to the climate emergency under the American Convention on Human Rights. What followed was an unprecedented wave of engagement: 263 amicus curie briefs submitted by 613 actors, such as States, international organizations, civil society, Indigenous communities, academics, and more. The court itself travelled to two of the frontlines of climate change: public hearings were held in Barbados and Brazil, bringing voices from across the Americas together to help the Court answer 20 complex questions grouped into six themes. Essentially, the IACtHR was asked to clarify the obligations of states “in their individual and collective dimension” to respond to the climate emergency within the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights.
“It reaffirms that states have an obligation under international law to address the climate emergency. It comes at a historic moment in which climate change redefines the limits of law and justice.” – Dr. Grethel Aguilar, IUCN Director General
Building on its landmark Advisory Opinion (OC-23/17) that first recognized the right to a healthy environment under the American Convention, the Court has now gone further. By interpreting the Convention alongside the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal, it has harmonized human rights and climate law, establishing the Convention as a solid legal foundation for ambitious environmental action. As Professor Christina Voigt, Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, put it: “It delivered an impactful opinion with far-reaching consequences… a cornerstone for climate justice.” Although advisory opinions are not binding in the same way as contentious judgments, they carry significant authority. They guide States, influence domestic courts, and shape future climate and human rights litigation across the Americas.
This article unpacks the Court’s groundbreaking opinion — especially the recognition of the rights of Nature — and reflects on what this means for the evolving relationship between human rights, environmental law, and climate action in the Americas and beyond.
Key elements of OC-32/25
Jus cogens and irreversible harm
To begin, one of the most striking aspects of the Advisory Opinion lies from paragraphs 287 to 294. These hold the Court’s recognition that the obligation to prevent irreversible harm to the climate and the environment now constitutes a jus cogens norm: a peremptory principle of international law that is universally binding on all States, regardless of their consent. Basically, jus cogens norms are non-derogable and non-negotiable. In other words, the court places the duty to preserve our “common ecosystem” in the same supreme legal category as the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, and crimes against humanity. Therefore, “anthropocentric conducts” (human activities) that cause irreversible damage to the planet are now considered fundamental violations of international law.
According to the Court, this obligation is a “precondition to the enjoyment of other rights that have already been identified as fundamental,” creating what it calls a “clear and demonstrable link of dependence” between the health of our ecosystems and the full realization of human rights such as life, personal integrity, health, and non-discrimination. This bold pronouncement grounds environmental and climate protection in the core of human rights law: a human rights-based approach to climate action means that States must not only prevent and reduce emissions but also ensure that mitigation and adaptation measures safeguard and fulfill internationally protected rights.
Right to a healthy climate
Secondly, for the first time at this level, the Court explicitly recognized the right to a healthy climate as a distinct but interconnected human right, separate from the broader right to a healthy environment. It defines a healthy climate as a stable system free from dangerous human interference: a condition essential for human well-being and the integrity of Nature itself. By distinguishing harm to the climate system from other forms of environmental degradation, the Court confirms that States have concrete obligations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and ensure that climate action upholds principles of precaution, prevention, and intergenerational equity
Nature as a rights-holder
What we find most groundbreaking is the Court’s explicit recognition of Nature as a rights-bearer, detailed in paragraphs 279–286 of the Opinion. For the first time at this level, a regional human rights tribunal has affirmed that Nature has “intrinsic value and can be a direct subject of rights.” Drawing inspiration from Latin American constitutions like those of Ecuador and Bolivia, as well as Indigenous worldviews that regard humans and Nature as deeply interconnected, the Court held (by a close vote of 4 to 3) that recognizing the legal personality of Nature is a legitimate and progressive step, fully compatible with the American Convention on Human Rights. This landmark recognition provides States, communities, and courts with powerful legal tools to confront the escalating environmental crisis. By rooting climate protection in the profound interdependence between human rights and the rights of Nature, the Court reinforces the understanding that safeguarding ecosystems is inseparable from protecting life, health, and the rights of future generations. Crucially, under this framework, States are not only obliged to refrain from harming Nature but must also adopt proactive measures to protect, restore, and regenerate ecosystems, recognising that Nature holds both substantive and procedural rights. This opens the door for Nature, through guardians or communities, to have standing in legal processes, enabling direct claims to halt destruction, ensure restoration, and secure accountability for environmental harm. In doing so, the Court aligns international human rights law with the growing global movement for Earth-centered governance, emphasizing that a sustainable future depends on recognizing Nature not merely as a resource, but as a living rights-holder in its own right.
“This approach strengthens a paradigm focused on protecting the ecological conditions essential for life and empowers local communities and Indigenous peoples, who have historically served as guardians of ecosystems.” (OC-32/25, para. 280)
While we warmly welcome this advisory opinion here at the European hub, we remain aware that this milestone carries its own shortfalls. From a strictly technical and operational perspective, the effective implementation of the measures proposed in this historic Advisory Opinion remains deeply questionable. While ethically bold, the Opinion is not legally binding and depends entirely on the political will and institutional capacity of States to incorporate its principles into national law and policy. Many American economies remain heavily reliant on extractive industries, which creates a profound tension between climate commitments and economic survival.
Our campaigns must not lose momentum, as the advisory opinion failed to operationalize the newly affirmed “rights of Nature” within existing property and development regimes. These gaps and the soft law nature of the instrument will be exploited by polluting actors. The Opinion does not provide clear legal tools or pathways for navigating this conflict, leaving open questions about how States can balance private interests with the obligation to protect and regenerate ecosystems. Without concrete mechanisms for harmonizing Nature’s rights with powerful property and profit-driven development models, this recognition risks remaining symbolic. To become truly transformative, the rights of Nature must translate into enforceable obligations that reshape how land, resources, and ecosystems are governed in practice.
Conclusion
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 holds tremendous normative and educational significance. Yet, from a technical and global governance perspective, its content exposes structural limitations that hinder its practical effectiveness. Simply proclaiming rights is insufficient if the broader global systems that block their realization remain unchallenged. The core issue extends beyond legal declarations—it demands confronting the political, economic, and epistemological structures that sustain the status quo. Ultimately, what is needed is not just the recognition of new rights, but a fundamental transformation of the systems that continue to stand in the way of making them a reality. OC-32/25 may not solve the climate crisis overnight but it reminds us that law, too, can evolve to meet an emergency. The challenge now is turning moral authority into political and legal reality.
