Published: Sep 24, 2025 | 08:30 am
By: Yenny Vega Cardenas, Ph.D., lawyer and President, International Observatory for the Rights of Nature
The climate crisis, now considered a global emergency, has prompted a major shift in international law, both globally and in the Americas. Two recent decisions illustrate this transformation: the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), issued at the request of the Republic of Vanuatu and other UN member states on July 23, 2025, and Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), requested by Chile and Colombia. Both opinions converge on the crucial importance of protecting the climate system and its components, but each introduces distinct nuances and normative tools, particularly with regard to the rights of Nature and the responsibility of States.
1. Subject matter and scope of the advisory opinions
The ICJ’s opinion focuses on the obligations of States to protect the climate and the planet under conventional and customary international law. The Court emphasizes that these obligations are peremptory and engage the international responsibility of the State in the event of a breach, with remedial measures including cessation, non-repetition, and reparation for damage. Emphasis is placed on the need for collective action, international cooperation, and the integration of the best available scientific knowledge (ICJ, 23-07/25).
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for its part, places the climate issue in a broader humanistic and ecocentric perspective, explicitly recognizing Nature as a subject of rights. Inter-American Opinion OC-32/25 identifies the right to a healthy environment and the right to a healthy climate as autonomous rights, protecting both human beings and the components of ecosystems. This recognition constitutes a paradigm shift in the Americas, moving beyond the traditional anthropocentric view and establishing that climate protection cannot be separated from the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.
Thus, while the ICJ provides a strict and binding legal framework, the Inter-American opinion introduces an ethical, preventive, and integrative dimension, linking human rights, the rights of Nature, and sustainable development.
Source: UN Photo
2. Rights of Nature and normative innovations
While recognizing the importance of ecosystem protection for human health and planetary sustainability, the ICJ does not formally enshrine Nature as a subject of rights. The responsibility of States is based on compliance with their duty of care, the prevention of significant harm, and international cooperation. The decision nevertheless provides specific tools for assessing State responsibility and promoting the protection of carbon sinks, which facilitates the implementation of coherent climate policies at the global level.
Conversely, the IACHR goes further by affirming that ecosystems and their components can enjoy autonomous rights. This decision constitutes a major legal turning point: it legitimizes the legal personality of Nature and allows States to be held directly responsible for the degradation of ecosystems. It is part of an international trend that includes concrete examples in Latin America (Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Colombia) and North America, such as the recognition of the rights of the Magpie River (Mutehekau-shipu) in Quebec, validated by the Regional County Municipality of Minganie and the Innu community of Ekuanitshit in 2021.
This legal recognition is strategic for Canada, where local initiatives in favor of ecosystem rights can now draw on international legitimacy, strengthening the advocacy of Indigenous communities and municipal governments for the protection of rivers, forests, and ancestral lands.
3. State responsibility: a crossroads between human rights and Nature
Both opinions agree on the principle that states have a continuing and international responsibility in the event of non-compliance with their climate obligations. The ICJ details this responsibility in terms of traditional international law: cessation, non-repetition, and reparation, including restitution and compensation. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights complements this approach by explicitly linking state responsibility to the protection of the rights of Nature and the prevention of irreversible climate damage, now recognized as jus cogens.
For Canada and the United States, these two opinions create a double imperative:
- Adopt robust climate policies in line with international standards, including GHG reduction, ecosystem protection, and energy transition, in order to avoid international liability for climate damage.
- Recognize, or even legitimize locally, the legal protection of natural entities (rivers, forests, wetlands), thereby strengthening consistency with inter-American jurisprudence.
In other countries in the Americas, notably Chile, Colombia, and OAS member states, the IDH opinion provides a more robust normative framework for integrating the rights of Nature into national law through conventionality review.
4. Environmental democracy and indigenous knowledge
The Inter-American opinion emphasizes environmental democracy, access to information, and public participation, stressing that climate decisions must be inclusive and based on the best available science. It also recognizes the value of indigenous and ancestral knowledge, which is essential for conservation and adaptation. For Canada, this legitimizes First Nations and Inuit initiatives to protect territories and waterways, aligning local practices with the global movement for the rights of Nature.
The United States, despite its legal tradition less favorable to the recognition of the rights of Nature, can draw inspiration from these decisions to develop integrated environmental policies, particularly in states or municipalities that have already adopted regulations favorable to the rights of Nature, which have been cited by the IACHR. Of course, any other way of protecting Nature is valid as part of a climate policy, such as protecting ecosystems through national parks and protected areas.
5. The Amazon at the heart of COP30
The recognition of the rights of Nature takes on a particular dimension in the Amazon, a region that is crucial for global climate regulation. In preparation for COP30, scheduled to take place in Belém, Brazil, Amazonian nations, including Colombia, have strengthened their cooperation to protect the rainforest. At the presidential summit of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) in Bogotá on August 22, 2025, leaders adopted the “Bogotá Declaration,” emphasizing the importance of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and preserving forest ecosystems.
This declaration is directly in line with the international dialogue on Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement, which is dedicated to non-market-based approaches, highlighting actions centered on Mother Earth and eco-centric perspectives, of which the rights of Nature are a pillar. Colombia, in particular, was a pioneer in recognizing the Amazon as a subject of rights in 2018, thanks to a historic decision by the Colombian Supreme Court.
6. Strategic implications and opportunities
Taken together, these two opinions represent a normative and strategic revolution for the entire Americas:
- They reaffirm the obligation to protect the climate and the environment as an essential condition for the enjoyment of human rights.
- They introduce the concept of Nature as a subject of rights, providing legal tools to prevent the destruction of ecosystems.
- They establish a coherent regional and international framework, strengthening cooperation, state accountability, and citizen participation.
For Canada and the United States, these decisions provide an opportunity to align national, state/provincial, municipal, and Indigenous climate policies with international standards, while strengthening the recognition of ecosystem rights at the local level. For other countries in the Americas, they provide a solid normative reference for the development of integrated climate and environmental legislation.
7. Conclusion
The ICJ opinion (07-23/25) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights opinion OC-32/25 converge on the need for urgent and coordinated action in the face of the climate crisis. The ICJ provides a binding and detailed legal framework on State responsibility, while the Inter-American Court broadens the perspective by recognizing the rights of Nature and consolidating the right to a healthy climate as a fundamental right.
For Canada, the United States, and the countries of the Americas, these two decisions represent a strategic opportunity to rethink climate responsibility, strengthen the legal protection of ecosystems, and promote an integrated approach to human rights and the rights of Nature. They usher in a new era in which safeguarding future generations requires the legal and effective recognition of the rights of Nature, while mobilizing traditional knowledge and citizen participation as essential levers for transformation.