Analytical Summary of Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Climate emergency, human rights and the rights of Nature
Source: law.nd.edu
Published: Jul 10, 2025 | 10:30 am
By: Yenny Vega Cardenas, Ph.D, Attorney at Law
“The 234-page decision is a legal masterpiece on climate change, and we warmly commend the judges and legal experts who crafted this comprehensive and insightful ruling.”
1. Purpose of the Advisory Opinion
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, issued on May 29, 2025, by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) at the request of Chile and Colombia, addresses the obligations of States in the face of the climate crisis under international human rights law. Recognizing climate disruption as an urgent threat, the Court explicitly declares a climate emergency and emphasizes the need for immediate and coordinated action. The Opinion clarifies the obligations of States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as other OAS Member States under instruments such as the American Declaration, the OAS Charter, and the Protocol of San Salvador.
Source: I/A Court HR.
2. Scope of Inter-American Advisory Opinions
This opinion falls within the consultative jurisdiction of the IACHR, allowing it to interpret human rights norms at the request of States or OAS bodies. While not binding like contentious judgments, these opinions carry authoritative legal weight, inform domestic legislation, and guide conventionality control by national courts.
The Court notes that its interpretation may also inform deliberations by the International Court of Justice, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
3. Evolving Framework: Environment, Human Rights, and Nature
a. The Right to a Healthy Environment
The Court reaffirms that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous human right, protecting both human beings and the intrinsic value of Nature. This right is inherently linked to others such as the right to health, life, and personal integrity.
The collective dimension of the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest binding present and future generations.
b. The Right to a Healthy Climate
The Court makes a groundbreaking recognition of the right to a healthy climate as distinct but related to the right to a healthy environment. It defines a healthy climate as a system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, vital to both humanity and Nature.
This right entails obligations for States to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and pursue sustainable development—grounded in precautionary, preventive, and intergenerational equity principles.
c. Right to Life, Health, and Integrity: Climate Consequences
Climate change is recognized as a severe threat to fundamental rights. The Court details impacts on life, health (physical and mental), food security, and forced displacement, especially affecting children, the elderly, and marginalized communities.
4. A Paradigm Shift: Rights of Nature
a. Nature as a Rights-Bearing Subject
For the first time at the inter-American level, the Court recognizes that Nature and its components may be subjects of rights, breaking with traditional anthropocentric legal thinking.
This decision, taken by vote (4 to 3), which recognizes the legal personality of Nature, is a legitimate normative advance that is compatible with inter-American principles. It provides effective tools for responding to the triple global crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. This approach supports a model of sustainable development within planetary boundaries, emphasizing ecological balance and the rights of future generations.
b. A Global and Canadian Trend
The Court highlights a growing global movement recognizing Nature’s rights, reflected in constitutions (Ecuador, Bolivia), judicial rulings, and policy decisions.
Among the examples cited, the Court specifically mentions the case of the Magpie River (Mutehekau-shipu), in Quebec (Canada), recognized as a subject of rights by the Regional County Municipality of Minganie and the Innu community of Ekuanitshit following the adoption of mirror resolutions in 2021.
This recognition positions the Magpie River case within an emerging body of international legal standards, enhancing its relevance for communities, Indigenous Peoples, and municipalities promoting ecological justice.
This Canadian reference holds strategic and symbolic weight, demonstrating that even within Western legal traditions, Nature’s rights are gaining legitimacy.
The Court takes note of the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly, within the framework of the Harmony with Nature program, of fifteen resolutions and thirteen reports on the jurisprudence of the Earth and the rights of Nature, as well as the Pact for the Future (2024) declaring “the urgent need for a fundamental change to live in harmony with Nature”.
c. Interdependence as Legal Principle
The Court underscores that the interdependence between human rights and the rights of Nature lies at the heart of climate protection. Upholding Nature’s rights is also a means to safeguard the climate, health, life, and the rights of future generations. States have a positive obligation to restore, regenerate, and protect ecosystems, based on both the best available science and traditional and Indigenous knowledge.
5. Additional Key Elements: Environmental Democracy and Knowledge Systems
The Court embraces the principle of environmental democracy, which includes access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Climate decisions must be transparent, inclusive, participatory, and guided by a heightened duty of care.
The Court also stresses the importance of environmental education, scientific cooperation and the transmission of indigenous, local and ancestral knowledge, particularly relevant to strategies for adaptation, conservation and ecological transition. It explicitly cites indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples as key players in the climate response in Latin America.
6. Main Legal Conclusions
- The Court unanimously declares the current situation a climate emergency requiring urgent and rights-based action toward sustainable development.
- It confirms that both the right to a healthy environment and the right to a healthy climate protect humans and Nature alike.
- States must mitigate GHG emissions, regulate corporate activities, assess climate impacts of projects, and actively protect ecosystems.
- Major Decision: Recognizing Nature as a rights-bearing subject (Decision 7) constitutes a powerful emerging legal norm against ecological crises.
- Decision 8: The prohibition of irreversible harm to climate and Nature is now considered a jus cogens norm—a peremptory norm of international law.
Conclusion
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 marks a historic legal and ethical milestone: uniting human rights, the rights of Nature, and climate justice under one coherent legal framework. By affirming Nature’s legal standing and the right to a healthy climate, the Inter-American Court offers a visionary and integrative legal paradigm capable of inspiring States, communities, and legal institutions worldwide.