Climate Change

A toolkit for using Advisory Opinion 32/25 in climate justice work
Climate Change, Human Rights

A Practical Toolkit for Using Advisory Opinion 32/25 in Climate Justice Work

 READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT The climate crisis is already affecting people and communities across Latin America and the Caribbean—damaging homes, livelihoods, ecosystems, and the fundamental right to a healthy environment.Advisory Opinion 32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the first of its kind to establish that both States and non-State actors—including companies—have clear and binding legal obligations to confront the causes and consequences of the climate emergency as a human rights issue.The historic interpretation, made public on July 3, 2025, gives human rights and environmental defenders a powerful new tool to demand action and justice.But how can this decision be used in real cases, campaigns, and policies today? A Legal Toolkit for Climate JusticeTo help answer that question, more than 20 experts and organizations—including AIDA—created a new publication analyzing the Court's decision with an emphasis on its practical applications.Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 contains 14 briefs, organized into four key areas:Foundational Rights and Knowledge;State and Corporate Obligations;Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups;Environmental Democracy and Remedies. Each brief contains:Context and background to situate the issue.A clear legal analysis of the Court’s key contributions.A critical look at how these standards can be applied in practice.Identification of opportunities to advance advocacy and litigation, as well as the gaps that remain. All content was rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure clarity and accuracy. Why Does This Matter Now?With OC-32/25, advocates and local communities across the region now have:Stronger grounds for litigation—incorporating human rights standards into climate-related cases.Legal leverage for corporate accountability—clarifying businesses’ duties to prevent and remedy harm.Arguments to expand protections for those most affected: children, women, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and environmental defenders.Policy tools to demand national climate actions aligned with human rights. In a region facing disproportionate climate risks, this decision shifts power toward communities and movements seeking justice.What You Can Do With This ToolkitThis publication is a tool to facilitate understanding of the Court's decision and promote concrete legal and political actions to protect communities and ecosystems from the climate emergency.It is addressed to individuals, communities, organizations, and networks working on the climate crisis and human rights issues, providing them with standards and practical recommendations to strengthen their litigation and advocacy strategies and efforts.In short, it's designed to help you incorporate strong legal arguments your work, including:Shaping urgent protection actions for frontline communities.Strengthening advocacy campaigns with legal backing.Informing climate legislation and public policy debates.Supporting community-led demands for adaptation and resilience.Integrating human rights standards into strategic litigation. Whether you are a lawyer, organizer, community leader, or policymaker—this toolkit can help you to turn legal standards into real protection and accountability. A Call to ActionLatin America has contributed least to global emissions but is among the most impacted by climate harms. OC-32/25 opens a new chapter: one where the defense of human rights is also the defense of our climate.Now is the time to use this decision to advance justice across the region.Together, we can transform this legal milestone into tangible protections for the people and places who need them most. READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT 

Read more
Hands weaving a basket
Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) delivered its Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on Climate Emergency and Human Rights (Advisory Opinion), marking a historic legal and political milestone in the global fight for climate justice. It is the first advisory opinion issued by an international court to find that both States and non-State actors, such as business enterprises, have obligations rooted in international human rights law to address the causes and consequences of the climate emergency.The Court articulates clear and binding obligations to act urgently in protecting the global climate system, preventing human rights violations resulting from its alteration, and securing climate reparations. The Advisory Opinion will guide climate litigation in local, regional, and national courts, and provide a foundation for climate policymaking, grounding local legislation and global negotiations not in voluntary commitments, but in legal duties. It will also serve as a testament to the lived experiences and expertise of those on the frontlines of climate harm and at the forefront of climate justice, affirming the peril that climate change represents for human rights and the promise of human rights-based climate action and remedy.This Advisory Opinion is not an isolated development but rather part of an unprecedented global movement for climate justice. It stands alongside the recent climate advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and may be joined by one from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) in the near future. Together, these proceedings mark a decisive moment in consolidating a more comprehensive and human rights-based legal framework to confront the climate emergency— what the IACtHR deems an exceptional threat that endangers life on the planet and severely undermines the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, these advisory opinions may help cut through the political inertia that has long stalled progress in international climate negotiations and national climate policymaking.   This publication compiles fourteen thematic documents developed through the collaborative efforts of a coalition of environmental, human rights, and academic organizations, alongside experts who have actively participated in the advisory proceedings from the outset. The topics reflect the main thematic areas articulated by the Court in the Advisory Opinion and are organized into four sections: (i) Foundational Rights and Knowledge; (ii) State and Corporate Obligations; (iii) The Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups; and (iv) Environmental Democracy and Remedies.Each brief was prepared by a lead organization and subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure accuracy and consistency. Together, they provide an in-depth analysis of the Advisory Opinion’s key contributions, its legal and practical implications, and the gaps and opportunities this landmark decision presents across the selected thematic areas. They also present arguments, standards, and practical recommendations aimed at strengthening climate litigation and advocacy strategies.This series serves as a resource for legal and advocacy networks, enhancing understanding of the scope of the Court’s decision and encouraging legal and political action to advance the structural changes necessary for communities and ecosystems to achieve climate justice.Read and download the publication 

Read more
Vista aérea del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio en Costa Rica
Climate Change, Oceans

The Ocean-Climate Link: 5 Things to Know

Por Víctor Quintanilla y Natalia Oviedo*Although the ocean is essential for stabilizing the planet's climate, it is rarely the focus of attention when we talk about the global climate crisis.The ocean is our best ally in the face of the climate emergency because it absorbs much of the greenhouse gases that humanity emits and that are the source of the problem.At the same time, the ocean is a victim of the climate crisis, whose impacts are pushing it to the limit with acidification of its waters, rising sea levels, and loss of oxygen, processes that seriously affect marine life.Despite its importance, the relationship between the ocean and climate has not been fully included in international negotiations in which governments seek agreements and policies to address the climate crisis.Faced with this gap and in a historic breakthrough, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a ruling in 2024 clarifying the obligations of States to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis.Below, we present five keys to understanding the link between the ocean and climate.1. The role of the ocean in the climate crisis.According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ocean is “a fundamental climate regulator on timescales ranging from seasonal to millennial.” Since 1955, it has absorbed 90 percent of the excess heat caused by global warming, along with a quarter of the carbon dioxide released by human activities.Ocean currents  transport warm water from the tropics to the poles, sending colder water back. This balances the temperature and makes much of the Earth habitable. The ocean influences climate variations on land by being the main source of rain, which feeds rivers and other vital freshwater systems.The ocean is known as a lung for the planet because, through microscopic organisms known as phytoplankton, it is responsible for generating approximately half of the world's oxygen supply. In turn, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, marshes, and seagrass beds absorb enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, mitigating the climate crisis. 2. The impact of the climate crisis on the ocean.The climate crisis alters the physical and chemical properties of the ocean, affecting its ability to regulate the climate. One of the irreversible impacts of climate change is ocean warming, whose rate and heat absorption has more than doubled since 1993. As its waters warm, they begin to release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.In addition, rising ocean temperatures are expected to reduce the amount of oxygen available, altering nutrient cycles and thereby affecting fish distribution and abundance. Another consequence is sea level rise, which is due to thermal expansion of the ocean and loss of land ice.Finally, the absorption of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide has resulted in ocean acidification, understood as a decrease in pH. This reduces calcium levels, a substance necessary for the shells and external skeletons of various species of marine fauna and ecosystems such as coral reefs.3. The inclusion of the ocean in international climate negotiations.Although the link between the ocean and climate change has been recognized since the beginning of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—by including the ocean in the definition of “climate system”—its presence in these negotiations has been gradual. A decisive milestone occurred at the 25th UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in 2019, where the first official dialogue on the subject was called for, resulting in recommendations to align climate and ocean action, while also promoting the mobilization of financing to protect marine ecosystems.  Since then, the ocean has earned a permanent place on the climate agenda. At subsequent conferences, the inclusion of the ocean was further expanded. The Glasgow Climate Pact (COP26, 2021) recognized the ocean as an ally in carbon absorption, called for the integration of ocean-based action into UNFCCC work plans, and mandated an annual dialogue on the topic. At COP27 (2022), countries were encouraged to include ocean-based action in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). And at COP28 (2023), the ocean was included in the first global stocktake of the Paris Agreement.Ahead of this year's COP30 in Brazil, which will have a specific agenda on “Forests, Oceans, and Biodiversity,” the challenge is to move from political recognition to the implementation of concrete actions to protect the ocean.4. States' obligations to protect the ocean in the face of the climate crisis.The health and resilience of the ocean is essential not only for addressing the climate crisis, but also for the exercise of fundamental human rights such as life, health, culture, food, access to water, and the right to a healthy environment. This highlights the interdependence between the ocean, climate change, and human rights.Recognizing this link, on May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued an important decision clarifying the obligations of States to preserve the ocean in the face of the climate crisis. These duties include adopting concrete mitigation measures to minimize the release of toxic substances into the marine environment, as well as exercising strict due diligence to ensure that non-state actors effectively comply with such measures.The tribunal emphasized the obligations of states to prevent climate change-related pollution that affects other states and the marine environment outside national jurisdiction. In relation to the right to a healthy environment, the ruling emphasizes the use of precautionary and ecosystem approaches in the context of states' obligations to conduct environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments of any activity that may cause marine pollution related to climate change. This includes that, in the face of the possibility of serious or irreversible damage to the marine environment, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay protective measures.5. Some key actions to protect our ocean and, with it, the climate.Effective protection of our ocean requires the commitment of governments, which must act at the national and international levels to prioritize its health. These include:Prioritizing concrete measures that integrate the ocean into climate mitigation and adaptation actions. Among the most effective are the protection and restoration of ecosystems, especially those that, in addition to capturing and storing enormous amounts of carbon, protect coastlines and maintain vital ecosystem services (mangroves, marshes, seagrass beds, coastal wetlands, and coral reefs, among others).Ensuring the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the ocean area beyond national jurisdiction. This involves the effective implementation of the High Seas Treaty, which will enter into force on January 17, 2026, as well as its ratification by countries that have not yet done so, to ensure fair, equitable, and sustainable governance.Defending the deep sea from mining. This requires imposing moratoriums on deep-sea mining activities on the grounds that there is insufficient technical and scientific information to prevent, control, and mitigate the potential impacts on the biological diversity of unknown ecosystems in deep waters and on the seabed.Protect the rights of coastal and island communities, which depend on fishing and local tourism for their livelihoods. These populations face increasing impacts from the climate crisis and multiple environmental pressures. Governments have a responsibility to ensure their resilience and well-being by safeguarding the marine and coastal biodiversity that sustains their ways of life and culture.Acknowledging the link between the ocean and climate, and translating it into concrete and effective measures, is essential to protect and maintain the balance of both life systems.This is what will guarantee the health of marine and coastal biodiversity, our food security, and, ultimately, a future for the planet.* Víctor Quintanilla is AIDA's Content Coordinator; Natalia Oviedo is a Costa Rican international lawyer and former intern at the organization.

Read more
La laguna congelada en el Desierto de Atacama, Chile
Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

New European Union policies for mineral supply: What are the implications for Latin America?

Amid the global race for minerals for the energy transition, digitalization, and the defense and aerospace industries, the European Union (EU) has adopted an industrial policy to secure its access to "critical" raw materials, including lithium. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 25 of the 34 raw materials the EU considers essential are found in Latin America's indigenous territories and strategic ecosystems. Civil society warns that the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and other recent policies aimed at deregulation and promoting the defense sector (Omnibus I and II) could deepen historical inequalities between Europe and Latin America.In this webinar, we addressed the threats to Latin America by the European Union's new policies and what the region's states and civil society can do to address them. To this end, we focused on the significance of the "strategic partnerships" that the EU has signed with Chile and Argentina, and explained what the so-called "strategic projects" that the EU intends to consolidate at the global level to maintain the flow of minerals from South to North consist of. Indigenous leaders denounced how excessive water use in lithium mining has already degraded Andean wetlands and caused the loss of biodiversity and culture.In this session, we debated the justice of the "European green transition," which, in the name of decarbonization, threatens to open up new sacrifice zones in the Global South, while erasing ancient knowledge and causing irreversible damage to carbon sinks that are essential for tackling the climate crisis. PanelAlejandro González, Senior Researcher and Advocate in SOMO's Climate Justice team and member of the EU Raw Materials Coalition.Pía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director and Director of the Environmental Policy area of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN).Joám Evans Pim, Coordinator of the Confederal Mining Area at Ecologistas en Acción and Director of the Montescola Foundation.Ramón Balcázar, Director of the Tantí Foundation.Román Elías Guitián, Community Atacameños del Altiplano, Argentina.Moderator: Yeny Rodríguez, Senior Attorney and Area Coordinator, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Recording (in Spanish) 

Read more
Un grupo de vicuñas bebe agua de un manantial en un paisaje de los Andes chilenos.
Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Circular economy: what is it and what role does it play regarding the climate crisis and energy transition?

Life on the planet, including our own, depends on nature.To create more sustainable ways of life and keep global warming under control, we need to ensure healthy, resilient, and productive ecosystems.The climate crisis, as well as the pollution and biodiversity loss crises, stem from human activities that exploit nature beyond its limits, without giving it a chance to recover, degrading ecosystems and pushing them to points of “no return.”These activities are based on the conventional economic model, which is linear and follows the logic of extracting, producing, using, and discarding resources.A more sustainable use of natural resources requires a different economic model.One option among many is the circular economy, an economic model of production and consumption traditionally described as a combination of reduction, reuse, and recycling activities.However, most current approaches to the circular economy, incorporated into various public policies, focus on extending the life cycle of products that have already been manufactured. They do not comprehensively incorporate the processes of extracting the materials needed to manufacture the products or their final disposal. This considerably reduces the protection of nature and territories during the economic cycle.That is why it is important to understand what the circular economy is and what it should include, in theory and in practice, so that it can truly contribute to a more sustainable and fair world. Circular economy: Definition and challengesAs an alternative to the linear economic system, the circular economy involves closing the economic cycle through various mechanisms. These include reducing the use of virgin natural resources, increasing the use of recycled materials, and minimizing waste through the repair and reuse of products, keeping them in circulation for as long as possible.It also means creating additional value for products whose useful life has ended when their materials are used again and again.  In the face of our continued and unsustainable use of resources, the concept of the circular economy is becoming increasingly prevalent in different areas.Although it is a living and evolving concept, when it becomes public policy, most definitions of the circular economy consider its main objective to be economic prosperity, with environmental care as a secondary result.In 2020, a legal definition of the circular economy in the European Union considered it to be “aneconomic system whereby the value of products, materials and other resources in the economy is maintained for as long as possible, enhancing their efficient use in production and consumption, thereby reducing the environmental impact of their use, minimising waste and the release of hazardous substances at all stages of their life cycle” …This and other definitions show that the positive effects of the circular economy on nature tend to be taken for granted, when certain theories or practices associated with the concept may actually hinder the protection of ecosystems and the people who depend on them.This is happening with the type of circular economy promoted to make extractive processes linked to the energy transition, designed to address the climate crisis, environmentally friendly. Circular economy and energy transitionHistorically, extractive activities such as mining have degraded ecosystems and violated human rights in Latin America, creating so-called “sacrifice zones.”Today, to address the climate crisis, several international organizations have positioned an energy transition that requires doubling the production of renewable energies and electromobility to decarbonize the global energy matrix.This also implies intensifying the extraction of so-called "critical" minerals for the development of clean technologies. One of these is lithium, a mineral of which the region has large reserves.Thus, far from putting an end to it, the energy transition promoted by the Global North is renewing the historical extractivist trend, generating great pressure on Latin American territories rich in minerals for the transition, affecting ecosystems and populations near extraction areas.In this context, the circular economy is promoted as a tool to make mining an environmentally responsible process. However, international proposals in this regard do not guarantee the resilience of ecosystems or the well-being of communities.This is evident in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile due to the growing global demand for minerals such as lithium.Currently, the circular economy applied to mining in Latin America focuses on the internal processes of mining companies, but not on the consequences that their interactions with ecosystems and communities generate in the extraction territories, without stopping the expansion of extractivism or the high socio-environmental impacts caused.Obtaining lithium for electromobility, for example, involves a complex, transnational supply chain. This includes mineral extraction, refining, the production of electrodes for batteries, battery manufacturing, and finally, the manufacture of electric vehicles.From a global northern perspective, the circular economy is mainly applied here to battery recycling and industrial improvements for mining. However, it does not include measures to protect the biophysical limits and resilience of the ecosystems where lithium is extracted, ensure environmental restoration, prevent damage to local economies, guarantee human rights, and repair those that have already been violated. Proposals from Latin America for a just circular economyTo ensure that the energy transition does not become a new extractive process that generates the same conflicts and environmental impacts that it has systematically caused and that are precursors to the current climate crisis, it is essential that the circular economy comprehensively integrates the mineral extraction territories.Circular economy schemes must avoid the creation, expansion, and/or deepening of “sacrifice zones.” They must also recognize the strategic value of ecosystems as natural capital for countries and communities, given the ecosystem functions they provide, including freshwater supply and carbon capture.To move towards a just circular economy in the extraction territories, the following principles must be respected:Protection of the human rights of local populations, guaranteeing their permanence in the territory and the continuity of their economic activities, linked to their livelihoods and their relationship with ecosystems.Promotion of environmental balance in accordance with the biophysical limits of ecosystems, recognizing their intrinsic values, which favor the conservation of their functions.Internalization of environmental costs in mineral value chains, incorporating the value of ecosystem services used for extraction into prices.Learn more in our policy brief Reimagining the circular economy from the extraction territories. Proposals from Latin America. 

Read more
Salar de Pastos Grandes en Potosí, Bolivia
Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Human rights and the rights of nature in the governance of minerals for the energy transition

A reading of Advisory Opinion 32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the Andean Wetlands Alliance The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) outlined in its Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), released on July 3, 2025, how human rights must be upheld in the face of the climate emergency. The Court also recognized the rights of nature and the responsibilities of States and companies regarding climate change. This advisory opinion followed more than 150 oral interventions and over 260 written submissions—including those from organizations that are part of the Andean Wetlands Alliance.This pronouncement sets a course for protecting valuable ecosystems and the rights of people in Latin America, a region deeply affected due to its significant reserves of minerals increasingly in demand for the global energy transition.Human rights and "critical" mineralsThe IACHR, a central institution in setting human rights standards for Latin America and the Caribbean, provided through OC-32 a set of tools for moving toward policies grounded in equity and justice. These tools align with the principles put forward by the UN Secretary-General in relation to the minerals value chain for the energy transition.Minerals such as lithium and copper are at the heart of current energy transformation policies due to their value for battery manufacturing. This value chain begins in territories such as the high Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, with the exploration and extraction of mineral deposits. It continues with their processing and refining in specialized facilities for the production of cells, which are later integrated into batteries that power a range of devices—mainly individual electric vehicles.The Court placed special emphasis on the protection of human rights during the extraction of so-called “rare or critical” minerals for the energy transition, which make up the first links in this value chain. This directly reflects Principle 1 of the 2024 Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition and offers a key legal instrument for protecting human rights in Latin American countries. It also outlines essential elements for respecting the integrity of ecosystems (Principle 2) from the most biodiverse region on the planet, as well as advancing justice and equity (Principle 3), transparency and accountability (Principle 6), and strengthened multilateral cooperation (Principle 7).Rights of Nature in a Megadiverse RegionAmong its conclusions, the Court recognizes the rights of nature, referring to the need to preserve its essential ecological processes. This contributes to consolidating a development model that respects planetary boundaries and ensures the availability of vital resources for present and future generations.This recognition is especially critical in Latin America, one of the most biodiverse regions in the world. It holds 50% of the planet’s biodiversity in ecosystems such as wetlands and tropical forests—especially the Amazon. It is home to 12 of the 14 terrestrial biomes and is a key epicenter for nature’s contributions to people.These issues are particularly relevant for a region whose historical role as a provider of natural resources has helped build the global economy, yet at great cost—causing severe ecosystem damage and violating community rights. The protection of nature’s rights provides a central tool for managing the mineral wealth essential for the energy transition, especially given that the region holds more than 50% of the world’s lithium reserves and 40% of its copper reserves.Latin America is also one of the most culturally diverse regions: approximately 54.8 million Indigenous peoples live across its territories, representing 8.5% of the total population—the highest global proportion relative to total population—and occupying over 20% of the land.OC-32 particularly highlights the role of communities in preserving ecosystems and a healthy climate, free from human interference. It acknowledges the importance of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge for informed decision-making and cultural preservation. This approach empowers local and Indigenous communities—long-standing guardians of ecosystems who possess deep traditional knowledge—yet who are often excluded from decision-making processes and denied their rights to free, prior, and informed consultation and participation.The right to a healthy climate: Promising newsOC-32 recognizes the right to a healthy climate as part of the broader right to a healthy environment, free from human interference. States are thus required to prevent any irreversible harm to the planet’s ecological balance and exercise heightened due diligence—taking into account the degree of potential harm, the best available science, and the specific vulnerabilities of at-risk groups, without creating or exacerbating such vulnerabilities.In their mitigation strategies, States must prioritize both people and ecosystems—particularly those that play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate systems and natural cycles.In this regard, the Court’s acknowledgment of the Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile is especially significant. These ecosystems contribute to climate adaptation through water regulation. They also have the capacity to mitigate climate change by acting as carbon sinks: studies have recorded significant levels of carbon dioxide absorption through their vegetation and extremophile microorganisms.Ironically, these very wetlands are now under threat from the expansion of mining for the energy transition.Corporate Obligations on Human RightsOC-32 makes it clear that, in addition to States, companies also bear obligations concerning the climate emergency and its impact on human rights. The Court calls on States to regulate and oversee corporate due diligence across the entire value chain, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These obligations include identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for business-related impacts on the environment, climate, and human rights. These are non-transferable obligations—they cannot be outsourced to third parties, such as certification bodies. The advisory opinion also calls for the avoidance of greenwashing and undue influence from third-party actors in corporate decision-making.A perspective on Advisory Opinion 32 from the Andean wetlandsSpanning more than 200 pages, OC-32 provides tools to ensure the protection of human rights throughout the mineral value chain, as well as the integrity of ecosystems, from a Latin American perspective. It also promotes implementation of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel principles on critical minerals for the energy transition.No less important, it upholds the interdependence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights protection within the Inter-American system, and strengthens the role of access rights and the protection of human rights, environmental, and climate defenders, in accordance with the Escazú Agreement. This recognition is especially crucial for the most dangerous region in the world for defending nature.In a context of climate denialism, fueled by political leaderships that reject humanity’s role in the climate crisis, OC-32 stands as a vital roadmap to urge States to meet their climate commitments through a human rights-based approach.From the Andean Wetlands Alliance, we view this opinion with hope—as a key tool to help ensure the rights of those who have inhabited these wetlands for generations and to protect these vital ecosystems. Reactions from Members of the Andean Wetlands Alliance to Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American CourtPía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director, Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina):"In a context where discussions on critical minerals are increasingly shaped by security and military interests, and unilateral or bilateral agendas from the Global North seek to control mineral supply chains, the Inter-American Court has taken a clear, strategic step in defining how the balance must be struck: placing human rights and nature at the center. Only in this way can we move forward toward justice and equity, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals."Ricardo Frez, Director, ONG Defensa Ambiental (Chile):"This unprecedented recognition of nature as a rights-bearing subject marks a shift toward ecocentric approaches in international human rights law. It is especially significant amid the growing—and often irreversible—impacts of mining for critical minerals like lithium and copper in the Global South. The Court affirms the autonomous protection of nature, not only as a means to secure human rights, but as an end in itself. It reinforces States’ obligations to prevent irreparable climate and environmental damage. In a context where the energy transition risks replicating extractivist models, this advisory opinion provides crucial normative tools to defend territories and life."Vivian Lagrava Flores, Empodérate, Human Rights Collective (Bolivia):"Although communities may not be familiar with technical terms like climate, energy transition, and so on, they have welcomed with hope the fact that Advisory Opinion 32/25 places greater obligations on States. Laws, constitutions, and human rights standards are being ignored, while all kinds of impacts are overlooked. Wetlands—especially freshwater bofedales—are nature’s miracle that sustains our way of life and are essential for mitigating climate change. Yet they are being destroyed by extractivism. The Bolivian State must grasp the magnitude of its obligations."Ezio Costa Cordella, FIMA NGO (Chile):"The concept of a just transition appears in several parts of the advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. There is a specific and explicit mention of this type of transition, and the Court refers to the obligation of States to uphold this principle when developing climate policies and strategies. This means they must avoid deepening situations of multidimensional poverty and instead assess how a transition will affect a given territory and the people who live there—including, of course, the workers in industries undergoing change. In this sense, it is important to understand that the ecological transition is not limited to policy measures; it also concerns how a range of social systems, including those of production and consumption, will adapt to the new climate and environmental reality. In this process—from the present state of affairs to what will emerge as a result of this new environmental condition—we must ensure that no further violations of human rights occur. On the contrary, we should create conditions that lead to better protection and fairer distribution of those rights."Oscar Campanini, CEDIB (Bolivia):"The advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court is an enormously important reinforcement of civil society’s defense of the environment, water, Indigenous peoples’ territories, and life itself—a defense that benefits not just specific groups but is, in fact, the only way to ensure our survival as a species. In the case of the high Andean plateau, this opinion supports the struggles of communities defending water and wetlands against growing pressure from critical mineral extraction projects such as lithium."Verónica Gostissa, Asamblea PUCARÁ (Argentina):"We are at a turning point for climate justice and human rights. The Inter-American Court now recognizes the autonomous right to a healthy climate. In regions like northwest Argentina—where ecosystems of high ecological value, such as high Andean wetlands, coexist with intense extractive pressures from lithium mining—this decision directly challenges the current mining and energy model. This legal milestone reinforces a truth that communities and peoples have long upheld: if it dries up rivers, it’s not an energy transition. And there can be no true transition without environmental justice."Paulina González Quiroga, Fundación Tantí (Chile):"We deeply value the statement issued by the Inter-American Court at a strategic moment for our bodies and territories, especially for those of us living in the Global South—in the highland and coastal desert regions of Chile. This is a mining and productive zone where both continental and marine waters are being affected by the entire value chain operating in the area. In our territory, marked by a history of environmental sacrifice, there is no real transition. On the contrary, the same communities and ecosystems are now facing an intensification of extractivist practices—now labeled ‘green.’ We are witnessing an unimaginable increase in the impacts on our high Andean and marine ecosystems, and on the ways of life that exist here. In this context, the Court’s opinion will be crucial in strengthening the legal defense of our territories in various processes of Indigenous consultation and environmental justice that are already underway and will undoubtedly continue within the framework of these policies." Yeny Rodríguez, senior attorney and Line Coordinator, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)"The Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American Court recognizes the high degree of vulnerability and risk in which strategic ecosystems in Latin America are found for the water cycle and climate, such as the Andean salt flats, and sends a very clear message to the governments of the region and to the companies operating in our territories: in application of enhanced due diligence, they must avoid mining activities that could generate irreversible damage to ecosystems and aggravate the situation of vulnerability of indigenous peoples or communities at risk." 

Read more
Corte Interamericana hace pública su Opinión Consultiva 32 sobre emergencia climática
Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate Justice in the Courtroom: The impact of the Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court

In a landmark ruling published on July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its Advisory Opinion No. 32, taking a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. For the first time, a regional human rights tribunal has clearly articulated the legal obligations of States in response to the climate crisis—establishing legal standards that governments across the Americas must meet to protect human rights and the environment.The Court recognized the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. The opinion affirms that States have binding legal obligations to address the climate emergency as a human rights issue, in line with domestic legislation and international treaties.This decision is expected to catalyze a new wave of strategic climate litigation, strengthen previous decisions, such as that of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and serve as a key reference for the forthcoming advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.In this webinar, we analyzed the legal significance and practical implications of Advisory Opinion No. 32. Together with regional experts and movement leaders, we explored how the Court’s decision can guide climate action, strengthen legal tools to protect people and nature, and help deliver justice to affected communities across Latin America and beyond. PanelAstrid Puentes, UN Special Rapporteur for the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.Javier Palummo, Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights, IACHR.Catalina Fernández, Head of the Department of Multilateral Systems for the Protection of Human Rights and Bilateral Affairs, Chile's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Nora Cabrera Velasco, director of Nuestro Futuro.Fábio Ishisaki, public policy advisor to the Observatório do Clima.Moderator: Marcella Ribeiro, AIDA. Recording   

Read more
Mujer pastorea camélidos en una zona de los Andes de Perú
Climate Change, Human Rights

The Inter-American Court's Opinion: 7 reasons it matters for climate justice

On July 3, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released its long-awaited Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), clarifying the scope of States' obligations in the face of the climate crisis – including, among other responsibilities, the duty to guarantee the right to a healthy climate.This marks the first time that a regional human rights court has made a broad and comprehensive statement on the issue of climate change.The opinion was issued in response to a request submitted by the governments of Chile and Colombia in January 2023. It is also the outcome of an unprecedented participatory process within the Inter-American Human Rights System, in which dozens of States, civil society organizations, Indigenous peoples, activists, and academics engaged through oral statements in public hearings and a record number of written submissions.Below are seven reasons why this landmark decision — written in and for Latin America — represents a turning point for climate justice in the region and beyond. 1. Clarifying States’ legal obligations in the face of the climate emergencyIn its decision, the Court affirms that the world is currently experiencing a climate emergency—a crisis driven by human activities, unequally generated by different States, and one that progressively and severely impacts people, especially those in vulnerable situations.In response, the Court underscores that States have binding legal obligations—not merely voluntary commitments—to confront this emergency with “urgent and effective actions, articulate, with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience.” This means that, amid the climate emergency, States are required to respect and guarantee human rights. 2. Recognizing the human right to a healthy climateFor the first time, the Court explicitly recognizes the autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the broader right to a healthy environment. This recognition establishes that States must protect the ability of both present and future generations to live in a climate system free from dangerous human-caused interference.Protecting this right—which underpins the enjoyment of other human rights—also requires honoring the principle of intergenerational equity. In practice, this means that States must act today to ensure that future generations inherit conditions of environmental stability that allow for equal opportunities for well-being and development. 3. Strengthened protection for people in vituations of VulnerabilityAdvisory Opinion No. 32 establishes that States must ensure that individuals and groups in situations of particular vulnerability — including women, children, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, peasant and fishing communities, older adults, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and human rights defenders, among others — are able to exercise their rights on equal terms in the face of climate impacts.The Court also recognizes that certain territories in the Americas — such as the Amazon, the Insular Territories, and Caribbean States — are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 4. Emissions control and regulation of business activitiesAccording to the opinion, States are required to set clear greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets and maintain an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights. They must also tighten and rigorously regulate both public and private activities that produce GHG emissions.In line with these mitigation strategies, States must determine which projects or activities require an environmental impact assessment that explicitly evaluates potential climate impacts. 5. Protecting human rights within the energy transitionAdvisory Opinion No. 32 underscores that States must safeguard human rights from potential violations linked to the extraction of minerals and other resources necessary for the energy transition.The Court also affirms that States are obligated to ensure the fair distribution of both the burdens of climate action and the impacts of climate change. This includes avoiding disproportionate burdens on certain populations — for example, in how the costs of the energy transition are allocated. 6. Recognition of traditional knowledge in climate actionThe opinion recognizes local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge as protected under Inter-American human rights treaties and as a key part of the best available science. This recognition opens new avenues for demanding the inclusion of such knowledge in climate solutions.The Court thus reaffirms that the right to science also encompasses the intellectual and practical contributions that Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and other local groups have sustained and safeguarded over generations. 7. Advancing the global movement for climate justiceThis decision reinforces and builds upon earlier rulings, such as the one issued in May 2024 by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the effects of the climate crisis. It also contributes to ongoing global legal efforts — including the forthcoming Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice, which will further define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.Together, these decisions are strengthening the global movement for climate justice, as well as supporting citizen demand for stronger government action. 

Read more
Audiencia sobre crisis climática ante la Corte Interamericana en Manaos, Brasil
Climate Change, Human Rights

Landmark Inter-American Court Decision Requires States to Protect Human Rights in the Face of the Climate Crisis

In a groundbreaking advisory opinion issued today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarifies the obligations of States to effectively protect people and communities from the harmful impacts of the climate crisis. The decision sets a powerful precedent for climate justice and offers critical guidance to national and international courts worldwide.San José, Costa Rica. In its Advisory Opinion No. 32, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has taken a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. The Court sets a powerful precedent by establishing legal standards that States across the continent must meet to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis. This landmark ruling is expected to drive a new wave of strategic climate litigation, enabling affected people and communities to access justice.“The Court’s decision marks a watershed moment for climate justice in Latin America and around the world, as it is the first time a regional human rights tribunal has clearly spelled out States’ legal obligations in response to the climate crisis,” said Gladys Martínez, Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “We welcome this significant step forward — one that will not only help protect communities and individuals, but also guide national and international courts, including the International Court of Justice, which is now developing its own opinion on this critical issue.”The Court recognized, for the first time, the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. In light of Advisory Opinion No. 32, States across the region now have legal obligations to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue, in accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties and agreements, including:Guaranteeing a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, as a precondition for the exercise of other human rights.Respecting the principle of intergenerational equity, by ensuring that current generations leave behind conditions of environmental stability that allow future generations similar opportunities for development.Regulating, supervising, and overseeing, as well as requiring and approving environmental impact assessments, to fulfill their duty to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.Defining a mitigation goal; developing and maintaining an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights; and strictly monitoring and supervising public and private GHG-emitting activities.Ensuring an equitable distribution of the burdens of climate action and climate impacts, avoiding the imposition of disproportionate burdens—this includes the fair allocation of the costs associated with the energy transition. In addition, the Court recognized in its opinion that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge is protected under Inter-American treaties and constitutes an integral part of the concept of the best available science—opening a new path for the enforceability and inclusion of these knowledge systems in responses to the climate emergency.“This decision by the Inter-American Court ushers in a new era for climate negotiations and litigation by providing individuals, communities, and civil society organizations with a clearer and more robust legal framework,” said Liliana Ávila, Director of the Human Rights and Environment Program at AIDA. “It empowers people to hold States accountable – both in climate negotiations and courtrooms – and to push for the structural changes needed to confront the climate crisis. This includes meeting their obligations on mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage, all while upholding fundamental human rights.”The Court’s decision responds to a request submitted in January 2023 by the governments of Colombia and Chile. In their petition, the two States emphasized that their populations — along with those of other countries across the Americas — are already experiencing severe impacts from the global climate crisis, including droughts, floods, wildfires, and other extreme events. They called on the Court to clarify how the American Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted in the context of the climate emergency, its root causes, and its wide-ranging consequences.“This decision serves as a binding interpretive tool for States in the region, opening new legal pathways to hold governments accountable for protecting human rights,” said Marcella Ribeiro, Senior Attorney at AIDA. “States must now align their domestic policies to meet the legal standards set by the Court — including, among other things, properly regulating corporate activity in the context of the climate crisis and ensuring a stable climate for future generations.”From the outset of the process, AIDA played a proactive role. The organization supported various communities across the region in ensuring their voices were heard by the Inter-American Court, submitting legal briefs that highlighted the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on Indigenous peoples, women, children, people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and on particularly fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. AIDA also facilitated the participation of community representatives in the public hearings held as part of the process, which took place in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024, respectively.AIDA additionally submitted its own legal brief to the Court, arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment – underscoring States’ obligations to prevent and mitigate the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their populations.The process saw the submission of more than 200 written observations — an unprecedented number for an Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court — reflecting the region’s strong engagement with the issue. Advisory Opinions play a vital role in shaping human rights law by clarifying how existing rights should be interpreted, thereby guiding States in how to uphold and enforce them within their territories or jurisdictions.Advisory Opinion No. 32 builds upon and reinforces earlier rulings, including the 2024 advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis. It also complements the forthcoming opinion from the International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – which will define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.In a global context that demands ever-stronger climate action, the Inter-American Court’s decision reaffirms that governments must act based on binding legal obligations — not merely voluntary commitments. This legal milestone provides people and communities across the region a powerful foundation from which to demand real action and the full protection of their rights in a safe, just, and sustainable climate. Press contact:Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +52 5570522107 

Read more
Audiencia de la Corte IDH en Manaos, Brasil
Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

From rights to remedies: What's at stake in the Inter-American climate advisory opinion

On January 9, 2023, Chile and Colombia jointly submitted a request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) to clarify State obligations in the face of the climate emergency. The request raised critical questions about States’ duties related to the prevention, adaptation, mitigation, and reparation of climate impacts, as well as the protection of environmental defenders and the promotion of equity.The process, which included the submission of over 200 written observations—an unprecedented number for an advisory opinion before the Court—and three rounds of hearings in April and May 2024, has created a unique space to understand the legal positions of States, international organizations, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples.In this webinar, co-hosted by AIDA, CDH - Honduras, CIEL, Earthjustice, ERI, FACE, Greenpeace International, La Ruta del Clima, UCS, and other allied organizations, we explored the transformative potential of this historic advisory opinion.We shared key reflections on the legal arguments presented to the Court, the broader scope of the proceedings, and what an ideal outcome might look like. We also examined how this opinion—alongside others issued or pending before international courts such as ITLOS and the ICJ—can strengthen climate justice, guide State action, influence climate litigation, and make a meaningful difference in people’s lives across Latin America and beyond. SpeakersElisa Morgera, UNSR on climate change and human rights.Alana Lancaster, West Indies University, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados.Sandra Reyes and Dagoberto Majano, Mesa Justicia Climática, Cedeño community, Honduras.Moderator: Luisa Gomez, CIEL. Recording 

Read more