A Human Rights Court Just Declared the Right to a Healthy Climate

While the Inter-American Court on Human Rights calls for urgent climate action, Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ further unwinds climate progress, violates human rights.

Jul 07, 2025

A panel of judges listens to testimony during hearings held last year as part of the proceedings on its advisory opinion on the climate emergency. The opinion was delivered on July 3, 2025. Credit: Julliana Saborío, courtesy of CorteIDH via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

Climate action is a legal duty, and countries must refrain from conduct that irreparably harms fragile ecosystems and the global climate system. That is what a regional human rights court in Latin America has ruled in a groundbreaking advisory opinion on climate change delivered on July 3. The opinion from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights is essentially a formal declaration of what is required of countries in the region under human rights law, particularly the American Convention on Human Rights, in terms of addressing the climate crisis. It is expected to serve as a guide to help climate activists push for stronger climate policies and hold governments accountable through strategies like climate litigation. As one legal expert put it, the opinion is “not just a legal milestone—it’s a blueprint for climate action and climate accountability.”

In its opinion, the Inter-American Court made a number of important points. First, it acknowledged the underlying climate science which tells us that the planet is facing a dire problem of unchecked global heating – a climate emergency. “The court concluded, based on the best available science, that the “current situation is actually a climate emergency,” the court’s president Nancy Hernández López said during a summary reading of the opinion last week. And this emergency, the court found, can only be adequately addressed through urgent action to mitigate and adapt.

Second, the court recognized the existence of a human right to a healthy climate. Such a right has already been recognized by US courts in the states of Hawaii and Montana, but this is the first time an international court has explicitly affirmed that a healthy and stable climate system is a human right. A healthy climate, as defined by the court, means there is no anthropogenic interference in the climate system that is dangerous to humanity and nature as a whole. That aligns with the stated objective of the signature global climate change treaty adopted by all United Nations member countries, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

The court’s opinion, however, goes even further than this treaty by recognizing that nature itself can have legally enforceable rights. This “rights of nature” concept has been adopted into law in multiple jurisdictions, including at the national level in the constitution of Ecuador. “The Inter-American Court of Human Rights made clear that protecting the rights of nature in law is essential to address today’s environmental crises,” said Hugo Echeverría, an Ecuador-based attorney with the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights.

“States not only must refrain from acting in ways that cause significant environmental harm, but they also have a positive obligation to adopt measures to ensure the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems,” the court stated in its opinion.

Third, the court suggested that corporations are obligated to not contribute to environmental harm, and countries have a duty to adequately regulate businesses and companies in terms of activities that are driving the climate emergency. Additionally, the court clarified an obligation for countries to adopt measures against disinformation, which is especially relevant as fossil fuel companies have been alleged to have funded and facilitated the dissemination of climate disinformation.

“The court makes clear that states and corporations themselves have clear legal duties to take measures to effectively tackle harmful industry conduct driving the climate emergency and ensure their actions don’t worsen the climate crisis,” said Upasana Khatri, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “For states, this entails, at a minimum, the duty to effectively regulate the exploration, extraction, transportation, and processing of fossil fuels, and to combat greenwashing, disinformation, and undue corporate influence that obstruct effective climate action. This opinion sends a clear message: fossil fuels are the root cause of climate destruction, and states have a duty to confront that fact.”

Fourth, the court reaffirmed the principle of intergenerational equity, noting that the climate crisis disproportionately impacts youth and future generations as adverse climate consequences like rising temperatures and sea levels are projected to worsen over time. Younger and future generations must not be deprived of their full enjoyment of human rights, including rights to a healthy environment and climate, the court said.

Additionally, the court declared that states must “reinforce the democratic rule of law” and ensure the protection of procedural rights, including rights to science, access to information and public participation, and access to justice.

“The Opinion is destined to become one of the most important legal documents of the century” - Durwood Zaelke

The opinion stems from a request made by Chile and Colombia in 2023 for the court to clarify what is required of countries in the Latin American region in the context of the climate emergency. It is one of several advisory opinions that international courts are issuing on climate change, which together will help reshape understanding of international law and clarify countries’ obligations to act on the climate crisis. Last year the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a landmark advisory opinion determining that countries are required to act with due diligence and according to climate science to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect the marine environment. And the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the main judicial body of the UN – will very soon deliver its own advisory opinion on climate change. These opinions are considered to be authoritative interpretations of binding international law, meaning they could inform further legal proceedings like climate lawsuits brought against governments as well as the UN climate negotiations.

“Legal opinions like these bring us one step closer to holding governments to account on climate change in their own national courtrooms – and it’s now up to civil society and legal advocates everywhere to pick up this new tool and use it,” said Lea Main-Klingst, a lawyer with the organization ClientEarth.

According to another legal expert, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development president Durwood Zaelke, the Inter-American Court’s opinion “is destined to become one of the most important legal documents of the century.”

“It provides the roadmap for litigators and judges throughout the world, giving them the guidance they need to effectively address the climate emergency,” Zaelke said in a statement. “The Court recognizes that promises and pledges are not a substitute for binding legal requirements.”

US Backtracks on Climate, Passing Most “Anti-Environment Bill in History”

The United States signed but never ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, the treaty under which the Inter-American Court was established. But in her summary reading of the court’s opinion, López said that the opinion should still be considered “extensively and holistically” by all members of the Organization of American States, which includes the US. Yet the US under the Trump administration is now actively backtracking on climate progress, engaging in a full-on assault on environmental protection, democracy and civil liberties, and human rights.

In fact, the very same day that the Inter-American Court on Human Rights delivered its historic opinion, the US House of Representatives took a final vote to pass what has been called the most regressive, anti-environment piece of legislation in history. The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed into law by President Trump on July 4, threatens access to healthcare for millions of Americans and takes a sledgehammer to programs and incentives for clean energy and climate action. It effectively guts the Inflation Reduction Act – the largest investment in climate protection and clean energy in US history – while showering more incentives and favors on the very industries – coal, oil and gas – that are most directly driving the climate emergency.

Climate advocates say this legislation is an assault on working class Americans and on young people and that it will literally cost lives.

“This bill is a ruthless attack on working people and our generation's future. Republicans are cutting jobs and ripping away healthcare and food stamps from millions of people just to hand out tax breaks to billionaires and Big Oil CEOs,” Denae Ávila-Dickson, a spokesperson for the youth climate organization Sunrise Movement, told me. “Sunrise Movement helped build the public pressure that made the Inflation Reduction Act possible, and now, Republicans are trying to undo climate progress.”

“While the bill’s proponents claim it will help ordinary working people, in fact it is replete with handouts to billionaire oil, gas and coal companies alongside huge tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy,” said Anne Jellema, executive director of the climate group 350.org. “At the same time, it guts all the programs that help communities survive the heatwaves, hurricanes, fires and floods caused by fossil fuel pollution - from advanced hurricane tracking to utility bill support and food assistance for the poorest households. Millions stand to lose their health and their homes, and tens of thousands will lose their lives.”

Through passage of this legislation and other actions and executive orders, Trump and the Republicans in Congress are arguably violating human rights, especially considering the Inter-American Court’s opinion on the climate emergency. Even the most fundamental human right – the right to life – may be at stake, and there’s a new youth lawsuit brought against the Trump administration making that precise argument.

All Eyes Turn to the ICJ

Up next, the International Court of Justice is set to deliver its highly-anticipated advisory opinion on climate change on July 23. This could further confirm the declarations made by the Inter-American Court and help cement the clarification that urgent climate action is not optional – it is a requirement under international law.

“As we’re seeing more and more countries roll back on climate action, courts like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are upholding the rule of law,” ClientEarth’s Main-Klingst said. “They have made it clear that addressing the climate crisis is a legal duty that demands a policy response – and now all eyes will turn to the International Court of Justice to see how they weigh in on these matters.”

One Earth Now

Discussion about this post