The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on July 5 praised the previous day's advisory opinion on the climate crisis from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) as a "landmark step forward," urging states to take meaningful action through legislation, policymaking, and international cooperation. Advisory Opinion 32/25 addresses signatory states' human rights obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José) in the face of climate change. The opinion was issued in response to a request submitted by the governments of Chile and Colombia last year.

The court concluded that "the current situation constitutes a climate emergency due to the accelerated increase in global temperature, resulting from several human activities, produced unequally by States in the international community, which increasingly affect and pose a serious threat to humanity and especially to those in a vulnerable situation."

The court affirmed the existence of a human right to a healthy environment, elaborating on the obligations derived from that right within the context of the climate emergency. It reiterated that states have international and domestic human rights obligations to protect counter climate change and, in particular, protect those most vulnerable to its impact.

In January 2023, Chile and Colombia jointly requested an advisory opinion on the obligation of States under the American Convention in response to the climate crisis. Following a written procedure that included 263 briefs and two public hearings last year, the court notified member states of its advisory opinion on July 4.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) also celebrated the opinion. Dr. Grethel Aguilar, the IUCN director general, stated, "This Advisory Opinion is key in reaffirming that states have an obligation under international law to address the climate emergency. It comes at a historic moment in which climate change redefining the limits of law and justice."

Advisory opinions serve a consultative function, allowing the court to clarify matters with regard to the compatibility of internal norms and the interpretation of the convention at the request of a member state. Although they serve as authoritative interpretations to the member states, they are not legally binding.

From JURIST, July 5. Used with permission.