BOGOTÁ, Colombia (AP) —In a landmark advisory opinion Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights linked governments’ human rights obligations to their responsibility to address the threat of climate change—a move expected to shape policy and litigation across Latin America and the Caribbean.

“States must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems,” said Court President Judge Nancy Hernández López.

“Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm… alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions.” López added. “Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses.”

The announcement won immediate and widespread praise, from a legal charity in Canada to the small island state of Vanuatu.

The opinion is the first of its kind from the region’s top human rights tribunal and responds to a 2023 request from Colombia and Chile, The Associated Press reports. It says states have a duty under international law to prevent, mitigate, and remedy environmental harm that threatens human rights, including through laws, policies and actions aimed at curbing climate change.

The court outlined a series of legal standards, including the recognition of a human right to a healthy climate, the obligation to prevent massive and irreversible environmental harm, as well as the duty to protect the rights of current and future generations.

Related:

Brazil Auctions Amazon Oil Blocks Amid Protests
What Would Happen if the Amazon Rainforest Dried Out? A Decades-Long Experiment Has Some Answers
Faster Climate Action Would Deliver ‘Huge’ Increase in Economic Prosperity, UN Agencies Say

“Today’s historic advisory opinion reinforces a growing consensus from judges around the world: the climate crisis is a human rights crisis,” Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson said in a release. “We’re currently seeing this play out across Canada through extreme heatwaves in Ontario and Quebec and devastating wildfires across the western and central provinces.”

Thomson added: “Opinions like these give hope to our clients in the precedent-setting Mathur case—and to all Canadians—that it’s only a matter of time before our courts recognize that governments who fuel the climate crisis are violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The advisory opinion shows that “we are witnessing a growing alignment between scientific understanding and legal interpretation,” agreed Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change adaptation for the Republic of Vanuatu. “The court has clarified that the obligations of states to prevent irreversible damage to the climate system is of ‘jus cogens’ character—meaning no derogation from it is allowed, and any contradictory rules are null and void.”

The ruling confirms countries’ “heightened obligations to address the human rights consequences of climate change in relation to at-risk populations including Indigenous peoples, children, women, and environmental human rights defenders,” Regenvanu said.

“The Court has declared that we are in a climate emergency that is undermining the human rights of present and future generations, and that human rights must be at the centre of any effective response,” Nikki Reisch, program director at the U.S. Center for International Environmental Law Climate and Energy, told AP.

The opinion said states have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems, guided by science and Indigenous knowledge.

“This is a historic opinion,” said Reisch. “It’s not just a legal milestone—it’s a blueprint for action. This opinion will guide climate litigation at the local, regional, and national courts, and provide a foundation for climate policy-making, grounding local legislation and global negotiations in legal obligation, not just in the Americas but around the world.”

Though not binding, the court’s opinions carry legal weight in many member countries of the Organization of American States and often influence domestic legislation, judicial rulings, and international advocacy. The court’s findings are expected to bolster climate-related lawsuits and human rights claims in the region, and to influence negotiations ahead of the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit, coming up in November in Belém, Brazil.

The opinion comes amid growing Indigenous momentum in the region, including a summit in Ecuador’s Amazon last month where hundreds of Indigenous leaders gathered to demand enforcement of court victories recognizing their land and environmental rights.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, is the region’s top tribunal for interpreting and enforcing the American Convention on Human Rights. Its rulings, though often challenged by weak enforcement, have played a key role in advancing Indigenous rights and environmental protections across Latin America.

In recent years, the court has condemned governments for allowing mining projects on Indigenous land without proper consultation, and advocates have increasingly turned to it as a forum for climate-related accountability.

The advisory builds on the Court’s 2017 advisory ruling that recognized the right to a healthy environment as a standalone human right, deepening its application in the context of climate breakdown.

The main body of this story was first published by The Associated Press and republished by The Canadian Press on July 3, 2025.