Symposium on Advisory Opinion AO-32/25 on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights: The Right to a Healthy Environment and State Obligations in Times of Climate Emergency

[Mariana Cruz Astudillo holds a law degree from the University of Chile, belongs to the Colla First Nation, and is a research associate at the Centre of Law and Climate Change Studies at the University of Valparaíso (CEDYCC)]

Introduction

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court) issued Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (hereinafter OC-32/25) in response to a request from Chile and Colombia regarding the duties of States in responding to the climate crisis. In this ruling, the Court formally declared the existence of a global climate emergency and recognized, for the first time in the inter-American system, the human right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right.

This recognition constitutes a doctrinal and legal milestone in Latin America and the Caribbean, one of the regions most exposed and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The decision emphasizes that climate change and its consequences are not only an environmental challenge but also a structural threat to the human rights of those who inhabit its territories.

I examine the central contributions of OC-32/25, regarding: (i) the recognition of the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right; (ii) the structuring of state obligations around this right; and (iii) the critical perspectives raised by its implementation. I show how OC-32/25 not only enriches inter-American jurisprudence but also opens up a new normative field for climate action and the protection of human rights in the Americas.

The Right to a Healthy Environment as an Autonomous Right

OC-32/25 establishes that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous human right (para. 270) recognized by the inter-American system. This step is fundamental at the doctrinal level, as it grants normative weight to climate protection and allows for the enforcement of specific state obligations in terms of mitigation and adaptation, beyond a generic environmental framework, as discussed in later paragraphs.

The Court affirms that this right is collective and intergenerational in nature, protecting both present and future generations (para. 272). Furthermore, it conceives of this right as one that protects not only humanity, but also nature itself as a subject of legal interest (para. 279), aligning itself with recent trends in Latin American constitutionalism (para. 286). This decision highlights the essential interdependence between humanity and nature, a principle that, while familiar to those of us who work in this field, takes on a different value when it emanates from a ruling of this magnitude. Consequently, States have an obligation to adopt effective measures to safeguard ecosystems, as the survival of humanity depends on it.

Structured State Obligations

One of the most significant contributions of OC-32/25 is the systematization of state obligations within the context of the climate crisis. The Court determines that states must act with due diligence, understood as the adoption of reasonable, appropriate, and effective measures to prevent, mitigate, and remedy damage associated with the climate crisis, in accordance with science, international environmental law, and human rights.

From there, the specific obligations derived fall into three categories: (i) action to address the causes of climate change and, in particular, the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) the protection of nature and its components; and (iii) progressive advancement toward sustainable development (para. 320). Each of these will be reviewed below:

(i) The Obligation to Take Action on the Causes of Climate Change

The Court clearly states that States have a duty to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the best available scientific knowledge and in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. To this end, it refers to “adequate and realistic targets” which should guide State action as such. Likewise, the Court establishes that States must exercise control and regulation over private actors that have a significant impact on the climate. This includes the obligation to impose due diligence standards on natural resources, the energy sector, and financial companies, guaranteeing effective accountability mechanisms. In doing so, the Court reinforces the notion of climate justice, ensuring that the costs and benefits of the transition are distributed equitably amongst all of society.

(ii) Protection of Nature and its Components

In this regard, the Inter-American Court establishes that, even when States adopt preventive measures, if environmental damage occurs, they have an obligation to mitigate it immediately, using the best available science and technology, even when the source of the pollution is not known with certainty. However, it warns that in the case of climate change, this duty to repair cannot be likened to classic environmental containment measures, such as cleanup or confinement operations, given the global and irreversible nature of the alteration of the climate system (para 364).

The Court also identifies specific duties to ensure ecosystem resilience in the face of the climate crisis. States must register the main challenges in this area, implement protection policies, and expand protected areas and biological corridors, prioritizing particularly vulnerable ecosystems in Latin America and the Caribbean, such as the Amazon rainforest, wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefs, among others (para. 336). In addition, the AO underscores the duty of international cooperation in the protection of transboundary ecosystems such as the Amazon Basin, the Mesoamerican Reef System, and the La Plata Basin, as well as the development of regional knowledge and monitoring platforms that integrate science and local and indigenous knowledge. The Court emphasizes that the protection of ecosystems must take into account human communities that form part of them, guaranteeing their rights to participation, information, and environmental justice, with special attention to indigenous and tribal peoples, within the framework of the principles of environmental democracy and the best available scientific evidence.

This point represents a substantive advance by placing the protection of ecosystems as a central component of the right to a healthy environment and a stable climate, shifting the discussion from an anthropocentric perspective to a comprehensive socio-ecological vision. The Court not only sets immediate mitigation obligations, but also establishes a robust framework of state duties in the areas of conservation, international cooperation, and climate governance, anchored in principles of environmental democracy and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. The Court gives concrete legal content to historical demands for protection, creating an enforceable standard in the face of inaction or insufficient state policies. It does this through the identification of strategic and transboundary ecosystems whose degradation compromises regional and global climate resilience.

Progressive Advancement Toward Sustainable Development

In the following paragraphs, the Court directly links the duty of States to guarantee the progressive development of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights with the obligation to move towards a model of sustainable development (para. 368). The Opinion emphasizes that, although the climate emergency is a complex phenomenon, addressing it requires transforming the structural causes that generate it, promoting a transition toward development understood as a comprehensive process that combines economic, social, cultural, and political well-being, but always within environmental boundaries (paras. 369–370). In this regard, the Sustainable Development Goals constitute an international consensus framework that guides States to integrate this duty into their domestic regulations and public policies (para. 370). The Court specifies that the adoption of a sustainable development strategy is an immediately enforceable duty, while the gradual implementation of measures corresponds to the progressive nature of the obligation, dependent on available resources (para. 372).

The Court also reaffirms the prohibition of regression in environmental matters and clarifies that any measure that implies a step backward must be justified with sufficiently compelling arguments and in consideration of all the human rights involved (paras. 373–374). It further highlights that fighting poverty and inequality is an indispensable condition for advancing toward sustainability, as they constitute structural obstacles to both environmental protection and the guarantee of rights (para. 375). In conclusion, the Court warns that measures contrary to sustainable development, or the lack of reinforced diligence in its achievement, constitute violations of the right to a healthy environment and of States’ duties to respect, guarantee, and adapt their regulations as provided for in the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador (para. 376).

The development proposed by the Court in this section is particularly relevant because it transcends the narrow view of the environment as a mere natural resource and links it to debates on social justice and economic models, and thus leaves no room for indefinitely postponing state action under the excuse of budgetary constraints or short-term priorities. Nevertheless, tension persists between the principle of progressivity and the need for profound structural transformations in productive systems, which requires states to define coherent and non-contradictory transition pathways.

The remark regarding a prohibition of regression (paras. 373–374) takes on enormous political and legal value in a regional context where regressive measures on environmental and climate issues are proliferating. Furthermore, by linking the fight against poverty and inequality with sustainability (para. 375), the Court places the interdependence between social justice and environmental justice at the center of the debate, a relationship that States often try to separate within their agendas. Thus, the standard set in this ruling requires a rethinking of public policy frameworks from a holistic perspective, in which backsliding on sustainability simultaneously implies a violation of the right to a healthy environment (para. 376).

Critical Perspectives on Applicability

Although OC-32/25 represents a notable advance, its implementation faces significant challenges. Firstly, there is an institutional capacity gap: many States in the region lack the technical and financial resources needed to implement ambitious climate policies, as evidenced by permanent requests from Latin American and Caribbean countries for equitable and fair access to the necessary environmental and climate resources.

Secondly, the Court also presents the linkage between social justice and environmental justice (para. 375), which represents a normative advance but raises questions about how it will be applied in practice. Transformation processes, which aim to reconvert current production and/or energy models, necessitate a series of political and legislative restructuring measures that may be challenged by the discourse of unlimited growth and the needs of the most vulnerable countries. These obligations must be imbued with ethical content so that they aim for a profound and necessary transformation, rather than mere regulatory compliance. To this end, it is important to return to the origin of this opinion: the climate and ecological crisis violates human rights and is leaving the most affected communities in Latin America with no options. Therefore, the duty to act is imminent, and this decision only pushes us to move forward more quickly.

From a doctrinal perspective, OC-32/25 offers structured legal language that can serve as a normative guide for climate action. However, its effectiveness will depend on the ability of social and judicial actors to translate this framework into concrete policies and successful litigation. In this sense, the Advisory Opinion is not a point of arrival, but rather an instrument under construction, and its impact will be measured by its reception and practical application in the coming years.

Conclusion

This Advisory Opinion marks a turning point in inter-American jurisprudence by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right and establishing a robust framework of state obligations in the face of the climate emergency. The Court not only offers a highly juridically dense normative development, but also lends legitimacy to the long-standing demands of civil society and affected communities by framing the climate crisis as a structural threat to human rights. By articulating the dimensions of mitigation, ecosystem protection, and transition to sustainable development, the Court redefines the scope of action of States, linking climate justice with social justice.

However, the transformative power of this pronouncement will depend on its practical implementation. The gap between the high standards set and the actual capacities of States in the region reveals that OC-32/25 is both a roadmap and a reminder of the urgency to act. If States fail to translate this framework into coherent and binding policies, there is a risk that it will be reduced to a declarative milestone with no lasting effects. Ultimately, the value of this Advisory Opinion will be determined by the extent to which it drives processes of judicial enforcement, political advocacy, and social mobilization capable of closing the gap between the norm and reality. Only then can this ruling become a living tool for addressing the climate crisis from the very center of a human rights perspective.

Photo attribution: Photo by Marc Schulte on Unsplash