At a time when the planet is facing unprecedented environmental challenges, legal instruments to address the climate crisis are gaining increasing importance. A major breakthrough at the global level is the recent Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (Opinión Consultiva 32/2025), issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos) on 3 July 2025. This opinion is the result of a request by the governments of Chile and Colombia, which asked the Court to clarify the obligations of States in responding to the climate emergency under international human rights law. Although it comes from a regional court, its conclusions have the potential to shape international law and access to environmental protection and human rights worldwide.

Recognition of the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous right One of the most key aspects of the opinion is recognition of the "human right to a healthy climate" as an autonomous rightThis right is derived from the right to a healthy environment, but allows for the definition of State obligations, the performance of which may be required independently of other environmental obligations. The Court further specifies that A "healthy climate" is one that results from a climate system free of dangerous anthropogenic interference for people and nature.This recognition elevates the climate crisis to the fundamental issue of human rights.

Strengthened obligations of states in responding to the climate emergency The opinion clearly sets out enhanced obligations for states in the context of the climate emergency. These include:

• Preventing and mitigating environmental and climate damage.
• Adapting policies and standards to respond to climate change.
• Ensuring comprehensive remediationif there is a violation of rights due to climate reasons.
• Refraining from adopting regressive policieswhich could worsen the situation.

Climate justice and equity An important point is also the principle common but differentiated responsibilitiesThe Court recognises that countries with greater responsibility for climate change should act more than countries with less influence on the climate crisis. It also highlights the need to protect vulnerable groups, which are often the most affected by the consequences of climate change.

Participation, access to justice and transparency States’ obligations regarding access to information and public participation are also essential for the effective protection of rights. States are obliged to:

• Guarantee effective public participation in environmental and climate decisions.
• Provide clear and accessible environmental information.
• Not obstructing access to true and complete information, which are essential for the population to cope with the risks arising from the climate emergency.

Recognition of nature and its components as subjects of rights The court clarifies that this recognition represents a normative development that strengthens the protection of the integrity and functionality of ecosystemsIt provides effective legal tools to combat the climate crisis and facilitates the prevention of damage before it becomes irreversible. It also provides for an imperative prohibition of anthropogenic actions that could irreversibly affect the vital balance of the common ecosystem, which enables the life of species – it is about standard jus cogens.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) States have an explicit obligation to protect the global climate system and prevent human rights violations resulting from its disruption, which requires greenhouse gas emission mitigation.

Although the Court's advisory opinions are not themselves directly binding on national judges (e.g. in Mexico), they may be incorporated into national law through international use by the Court in disputed cases or domestically if the Supreme Court of Justice of a nation incorporates them into its binding precedents. Furthermore, these opinions have interpretative authority, which influences the understanding of rights and the scope of obligations undertaken at international level and can therefore be taken into account in judicial decisions. This represents a significant a step forward in global environmental protection and human rights in the context of the climate crisis. JRi