Report on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency (AO-32)

Introduction: A Landmark Opinion for Climate Justice and Sustainable Development

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its Advisory Opinion AO-32, establishing a comprehensive legal framework for State obligations concerning the climate emergency. The opinion, resulting from the most participatory proceeding in the Court’s history, synthesizes input from States, civil society, and academic institutions, reflecting a multi-stakeholder approach consistent with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The Court reformulated the initial queries into three core areas of analysis:

1. Substantive rights and State obligations.
2. Procedural rights and their role in climate governance.
3. Specific obligations towards groups in situations of vulnerability.

By framing the climate crisis as a human rights issue, AO-32 directly engages with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, providing critical legal guidance for achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

State Obligations on Substantive Rights and Climate Action

The IACtHR clarified that the climate emergency imposes extensive obligations on States to protect substantive human rights. This approach firmly positions SDG 13 (Climate Action) as a prerequisite for the realization of other fundamental rights.

Reinforced Due Diligence and the Right to a Safe Climate

The Court introduced the concept of “reinforced due diligence,” requiring States to take preventative measures against foreseeable climate-related harms. This obligation is fulfilled when action accounts for specific risks to human rights and the vulnerability of affected populations. A significant innovation is the recognition of the right to a safe climate, which underpins the protection of other essential rights, including:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

Ecocentric Framework and Ecosystem Protection

In a post-anthropocentric development, the Court recognized Nature and its components as subjects of rights. This ecocentric perspective mandates that States adopt measures for the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems, directly supporting the objectives of SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Further reinforcing this, the Court declared that the prohibition against causing massive and irreversible environmental harm has achieved the status of a jus cogens norm, placing the protection of ecological integrity at the highest level of international law.

Equity and Differentiated Responsibilities

AO-32 endorses a “fair shares framework” grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). By requiring consideration of historical emissions and current capacity, the opinion aligns climate action with the principles of equity and justice, contributing directly to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Procedural Rights for Effective and Just Climate Governance

The opinion affirms that procedural rights are indispensable for effective climate governance and are central to achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). These rights ensure that climate action is transparent, participatory, and accountable.

Access to Information, Participation, and Justice

The Court reinforced the foundational procedural rights necessary for equitable climate governance:

• Access to Information: Ensuring the public can access reliable data on climate change.
• Public Participation: Guaranteeing the right of communities to engage in climate-related decision-making.
• Access to Justice: Enabling victims of climate harm to seek effective remedies.

Critically, the Court broadened the scope for legal standing (*locus standi*), affirming that victims should have access to justice even when the harm originates from a State outside their territory. This strengthens international accountability mechanisms vital for SDG 16.

The Right to Science and Knowledge

The IACtHR recognized the right to science as a corollary of the right to information. This obligates States to generate and disseminate the best available scientific data, as well as traditional and Indigenous knowledge. This promotes evidence-based policymaking and empowers communities, aligning with the targets of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and the knowledge-sharing principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Intersectional Obligations and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

The Court provided a detailed interpretation of State obligations towards groups disproportionately affected by the climate emergency, emphasizing that climate action must be designed to advance SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

Acknowledging Disproportionate Impacts

AO-32 establishes that the climate crisis intensifies pre-existing patterns of discrimination and structural inequality. It mandates that States adopt intersectional approaches that account for the overlapping vulnerabilities of marginalized groups, including:

• Children and older persons
• Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, and peasant communities
• Women
• Persons with disabilities
• Environmental defenders

Mandating Differentiated and Inclusive Action

The Court mandated differentiated obligations to protect these groups, requiring States to prioritize resources, ensure culturally appropriate adaptation measures, and facilitate meaningful participation in decision-making, particularly for women and Indigenous authorities. This approach ensures that climate policies do not exacerbate inequality but instead serve as a tool to dismantle it, linking climate action with the goal of eradicating multidimensional poverty as outlined in SDG 1 (No Poverty).

Conclusion and Global Implications

Advisory Opinion AO-32 represents a historic contribution to international law, providing a coherent, justice-based framework for climate action that is deeply integrated with the Sustainable Development Goals. By emphasizing a duty of international cooperation (SDG 17), reinforced due diligence, and equity (SDG 10), the Court has outlined a pathway for States to meet their climate commitments in a manner that respects and protects human rights.

While the opinion’s direct legal authority is limited to members of the Organization of American States that accept the Court’s jurisdiction, its normative influence is expected to be significant. It offers a Global South-oriented legal framework that can inform domestic jurisprudence and influence other international bodies. Ultimately, AO-32 provides a vital roadmap for aligning climate governance with the universal ambition of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, repositioning climate action as an instrument for achieving equality, justice, and ecological integrity.

Analysis of the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion AO-32 addresses a wide range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by framing the climate emergency as a human rights issue that requires a holistic, justice-oriented, and cooperative response. The following SDGs are directly connected to the issues discussed:

• SDG 13: Climate Action: This is the central theme of the article. The entire text revolves around the “climate emergency,” State obligations to address climate change, and the integration of climate action with human rights law. The article explicitly mentions the Paris Agreement and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which are core to SDG 13.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article is fundamentally about strengthening legal and institutional frameworks to address the climate crisis. It details the role of a judicial body (the IACtHR) in defining State obligations and focuses heavily on procedural rights such as “access to information, public participation, and access to justice,” which are cornerstones of SDG 16.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article places significant emphasis on the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable and marginalized groups. It discusses the need for “intersectional approaches,” highlights the vulnerability of “Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, rural and peasant communities,” and argues that climate policies must not “exacerbate structural inequalities.”
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The article specifically identifies “women” as a group deserving of “heightened protection” and mandates “meaningful participation, particularly of women… in decision-making,” directly aligning with the goals of SDG 5 to ensure women’s participation and leadership.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article underscores the importance of international cooperation. It highlights the “duty to cooperate” among states, the “collaborative efforts of States, civil society, academics, and social movements” in forming the opinion, and the need for “coordinated international efforts,” all of which are central to SDG 17.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article discusses the IACtHR’s “post-anthropocentric move” in recognizing “Nature and its components as subjects of rights.” It establishes a State obligation for the “protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems,” which is a core objective of SDG 15.
• SDGs 2, 3, and 6 (Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Clean Water and Sanitation): The article links the right to a safe climate as being “inseparable from other protected interests, such as health, water, and food,” thereby connecting climate action directly to these fundamental human needs and development goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the detailed discussion in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. The article supports this by requiring States to design climate measures that reflect the “specific lived experiences, risks, and adaptive capacities of each group.”
• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article directly addresses this by discussing States’ obligations to adopt “intersectional approaches to climate governance” and mainstreaming justice “across all phases of climate policymaking.”
• Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. The Court’s recognition of the “right to science” and the State’s duty to “generate and disseminate reliable, accessible, and culturally relevant scientific data” aligns with this target.
• Target 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The article reinforces this by endorsing a “fair shares framework” grounded in the “principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR–RC),” including consideration of “historical emissions.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article’s focus on guaranteeing “access to justice even when residing outside the territory of the State that caused the harm” and ensuring the “right to an effective remedy” directly supports this target.
• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article emphasizes the need for “public participation,” “meaningful participation, particularly of women and Indigenous authorities in decision-making,” and a “participatory… approach to climate governance.”
• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. This is explicitly addressed through the affirmation of the rights to “access information” and the “right to science,” which includes access to the “best available science, as well as traditional and Indigenous knowledge.”
• Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The article mandates this by stating that climate measures “must not reproduce or exacerbate structural inequalities” and should instead “serve as a vehicle to dismantle them.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The article champions this through its requirement for States to adopt “intersectional approaches” that account for the vulnerabilities of specific groups, including “children, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, rural and peasant communities, persons with disabilities, older persons, women, and environmental defenders.”
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The article supports this by establishing an “obligation to prevent disproportionate impacts” across all climate policies and focusing on “multidimensional poverty as a heightened risk of climate vulnerability.”

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making. This is directly addressed by the Court’s mandate to facilitate “meaningful participation, particularly of women… in decision-making.”

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts. The article advances this by recognizing Nature as a subject of rights and obligating States to “adopt measures to ensure the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

While the article does not specify quantitative SDG indicators, it provides a strong qualitative and legal basis from which progress can be measured. The following indicators are implied or can be derived from the text:

• Level of public participation in climate governance: The article notes that the AO-32 proceeding was the “most participatory” in IACtHR history, with “263 third-party written interventions from 613 actors” and “183 delegations” in public hearings. This suggests that the number and diversity of stakeholders involved in climate policy-making can be a key indicator.
• Adoption of rights-based climate policies: Progress can be measured by the number of States that legally recognize the “right to a safe climate” or integrate “intersectional approaches” into their national climate action plans and policies, as mandated by the Court.
• Effectiveness of access to justice mechanisms: An indicator would be the number of climate-related cases where courts grant standing to victims across borders (“transboundary damage”), as well as the provision of “comprehensive and tailored reparation measures” in successful cases.
• Dissemination and use of scientific and traditional knowledge: Progress could be tracked by the extent to which States “generate and disseminate reliable, accessible, and culturally relevant scientific data” and incorporate “traditional and Indigenous knowledge” into environmental impact assessments and climate decision-making.
• Implementation of ecosystem protection measures: An indicator would be the number of national laws or policies enacted to ensure the “protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems,” reflecting the recognition of Nature as a subject of rights.
• Alignment of national climate targets with equity principles: State commitments (e.g., Nationally Determined Contributions) could be assessed against a “fair shares framework” that considers “historical emissions and the current capacity to act,” as endorsed by the Court.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ejiltalk.org