On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion (AO) on the climate emergency and human rights for the first time.
The AO 32/25 responds to the request submitted by the states of Chile and Colombia in 2023, and recognizes the disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on certain groups, as well as the obligations of states to confront this crisis within the framework of international human rights law.
As part of the process of collecting testimonies and hearing from experts in various fields, the Court invited all interested individuals and organizations to submit written observations, and called on courts in the region to present their jurisprudence on the climate emergency and human rights.
The invitation was heard, resulting in the most participatory consultative process in its history: the Court received 263 written observations submitted by 613 stakeholders and heard from more than 180 delegations in public hearings in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024.
EarthRights International, Together with Grassroots Communities, Submits an Amicus Brief and Presents its Arguments
EarthRights International, along with 25 Indigenous, tribal, Afro-descendant, and campesino communities and organizations from Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, and the United States, submitted an Amicus Curiae brief that gathered direct testimony on the harms that climate change has caused these communities.
At the hearing held on May 28, 2024, in Manaus, Brazil, through the intervention of representatives of affected communities, we highlighted the urgency of adopting effective measures and guaranteeing the right to self-determination of Indigenous and tribal peoples, and Afro-descendant and campesino communities, in accordance with their ways of life, to the Court.
“Constant flooding, temperature changes that affect our crops, and forced displacement due to the impossibility of living in our territory require the adoption of concrete measures that respond to this crisis,” said Everildys Córdoba, leader of the Consejo Comunitario de Comunidades Negras de la Cuenca del Río Tolo y Zona Costera Sur (COCOMASUR) in Colombia, who presented her arguments before the Court.
Also testifying was Rosina Philippe, member of the Council of Elders of the Atakapa-Ishak Chawasha Tribe of the Grand Bayou Indian Village in Louisiana, United States of America, who denounced that “the extraction of oil and gas and climate change in our territories have created a crisis; the lands that our people have stewarded for millennia are disappearing (…) [governments] are treating our vital world as if it were real estate (…), continuing to commodify our resources threatens to have genocidal effects.”
The Defense of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Territory in the Context of the Climate Emergency
Based on the information collected, the Court divided the AO into two parts. The first describes the factual background of climate change and its effects on people and the environment in which they live, as well as the international response to climate change and the development of state norms addressing this issue.
The second interprets and clarifies the scope of state obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, especially those of persons and groups in situations of vulnerability in the face of the climate crisis.
Regarding the defense of the territory of ethnic communities in the context of the climate emergency in the AO 32/25, we want to highlight that the Court:
- Indicated that, according to the best available scientific evidence, climate change is a phenomenon accelerated by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions derived from human activities. The current situation can be considered a climate emergency due to the accelerated increase in global temperature, which poses a serious threat to humanity, especially the most vulnerable populations.
- Framed the climate emergency within the broader context of the so-called “triple planetary crisis,” generated by the relationship between climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. This concept was articulated by the Court in the judgment of the case of the Indigenous U’wa People and their Members v. Colombia, on July 4, 2024, a case litigated by EarthRights.
- Recognized that current production and consumption patterns are unsustainable, as are demographic pressures that increase the exposure of ecosystems and people to climate risks.
- Recognized that state contributions to climate change have been highly unequal. Industrial powers, whose economies depend more heavily on fossil fuels, have generated the greatest amount of accumulated historical emissions.
- Indicated that the impacts of climate change do not affect all people equally; poorer and more unequal regions are more vulnerable to experiencing severe consequences, despite contributing the least to emissions and having less capacity to respond.
- Highlighted the global importance of Amazon rainforest ecosystems and acknowledged that Indigenous peoples, whose livelihoods depend on natural resources, face even greater risks in the face of extreme climatic events that affect their food systems.
- Underscored that protected areas and Indigenous territories are significant for conservation, self-determination, and the protection of territorial rights of these peoples and local communities, as these areas have lower deforestation rates than non-protected forests.
Regarding state obligations in the context of the climate emergency, we want to highlight that the Court:
- Emphasized that fulfilling state obligations concerning economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights is essential to prevent the risks associated with the climate emergency.
- Warned that the vulnerability of certain groups and individuals has been exacerbated by the absence or lack of guarantees of rights such as health, work, social security, housing, water, food, and a healthy environment. For this reason, the Court stresses the need for States to allocate the maximum available resources to protect these groups from the effects of climate change.
- Highlighted the importance of recognizing nature as a subject of rights, as this allows for the protection of the ecological conditions essential for sustaining life and empowers local communities and Indigenous peoples, who have historically protected these ecosystems.
- Established that states are prohibited from causing irreversible harm to the climate and the environment, categorizing this obligation as jus cogens, that is, a peremptory norm of public order, mandatory in nature and not subject to derogation.
- Recognized the existence of the right to a healthy climate, understood as a system free from dangerous human activities that affect people and nature. In its collective dimension, this right protects the interests, well-being, and balance of present and future generations, for humans and other species. In its individual dimension, this right seeks to ensure that each person can grow and develop within an environment free from dangerous human activities.
- Indicated that environmental impact assessments must be carried out for any project or activity that could be potentially harmful to the environment, particularly those that generate significant GHG emissions, and must include a climate impact assessment.
- Emphasized that the right to science encompasses access for all people to the benefits of both conventional science and local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge. It also emphasized the fundamental role of Indigenous women in preserving and transmitting this knowledge.
In this article, we have highlighted some of the key points in AO 32/25 in relation to ethnic communities and the obligations of states to protect them against the risks of the climate crisis. However, it is important to note that the AO 32/25 is a much broader document that addresses issues on which the Court had not previously issued any pronouncement. In this sense, it is important to identify those aspects that can help strengthen territorial defense in the face of the challenges and impacts of this crisis.
This AO sets an important legal precedent on the impacts of the climate crisis on Indigenous and tribal peoples, recognizing their fundamental role in protecting the environment. It also establishes a legal precedent regarding the obligations of states to confront this crisis and prevent disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
Now the real challenge lies in ensuring that governments comply with the obligations outlined by the Court in its jurisprudence and in this AO. For this reason, it will be essential for land and territory defenders, as well as the lawyers who support their defense processes, to make use of these international legal standards to demand compliance with these obligations in the field of human rights, especially in the current context of the climate crisis.
