OAS Court holds states responsible for the climate crisis: what does this mean?
The unprecedented ruling states that climate change impacts human rights and imposes immediate obligations on governments across the American continent
Indígenas protestam no Largo de São Sebastião, em Manaus, durante ato pelo Dia dos Povos Indígenas, em 19/04/2024. Foto: Suamy Beydoun/AGIF via AFP.
In an unprecedented ruling, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), affiliated with the Organization of American States (OAS), affirmed that states are directly responsible for fighting the climate crisis. Advisory Opinion No. 32 was published at the beginning of July and establishes that the climate crisis structurally compromises human rights across the continent and imposes concrete legal obligations on governments. The decision is a historic milestone in international law.
The opinion, requested by Chile and Colombia, was approved by a narrow majority (4 votes to 3), but represents substantial progress, among which is the acknowledgement that the right to a stable climate is related to the right to a healthy environment; the requirement that states make more diligent efforts, guided by the best science available and local knowledge; and the elevation of the obligation to prevent irreversible environmental damage to the status of jus cogens — a peremptory norm of international law which is even binding for countries that have not signed specific treaties.
According to Thales Machado, an advisor at Conectas, “the ruling is very important because it positions human rights at the center of the response to the climate crisis, imposing legal obligations on states to ensure climate justice and effective protection for the most vulnerable populations, unanimously recognizing the climate crisis and the right to a stable climate.”
Read more
The Court also reiterated the need to protect Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, quilombolas, traditional river communities and environmental defenders, calling for inclusive and differentiated policies that guarantee their rights, self-determination and the protection of their territories. The document also reaffirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, acknowledging that countries that are historically responsible for the highest levels of emissions should finance the climate transition in developing countries. Another central point of the decision is the recognition that traditional wisdom and territorial knowledge should have the same bearing as scientific knowledge on the formulation of public policies, breaking away from a technocratic, centralized approach.
What the Indigenous peoples say
The Indigenous activist Txai Suruí commented on the decision in an article published in the Folha de São Paulo newspaper: “For us, Indigenous people, the Court is starting to say in legal terms what we have always upheld with our bodies and our territories. Climate change is not just another environmental issue. It affects water resources, cycles, daily life, the spirits, and people.”
According to her, “by acknowledging that the effects of the climate crisis are unequal and require differentiated protection, the Court is stating that countries have a duty not only to refrain from policies that exacerbate our vulnerability, but also to actively guarantee our rights.”
Conectas’ participation
Conectas was one of the civil society organizations that actively participated in the process, submitting written contributions and attending public hearings held in Bridgetown, Brasília and Manaus. During the hearings, the organization highlighted that the right to a healthy environment entails substantive, procedural and special obligations towards people in vulnerable conditions and that these obligations must be guided by the principles of non-discrimination and inter-generational equity. Conectas also highlighted the importance of a fair energy transition, respecting the rights of traditional peoples and communities, such as the quilombola communities in the Serra dos Rafaéis, Piauí, who have been affected by the installation of wind farms financed by public and multilateral banks. The organization also called for greater accountability for development banks in defining climate and economic policy, pointing to the need for concrete plans to reduce emissions to guide investments in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Guidance for States
Although Advisory Opinion No. 32 does not carry the binding force of a court ruling, it serves as robust legal guidance for the 34 OAS member countries to align their public policies, legal decisions, and litigation strategies. In practice, the document strengthens the legal basis for communities affected by the climate crisis – Indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, women, young people and traditional populations – to demand protection, reparation and justice. The decision imposes a new level of responsibility on states, who must not only mitigate environmental damage but also ensure adaptation measures based on science, social justice and respect for territories.
UN supports Court’s measure
UN human rights experts welcomed the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ historic Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency, calling it a landmark in the protection of human rights amid the environmental crisis. They highlighted its recognition of the climate crisis as an existential risk to humanity and the bolstering of state obligations to act with greater diligence in preventing irreversible damage to the climate system.
The Court emphasized the need for cooperation among states, a transition to sustainable development models and effective regulation of sectors such as fossil fuels, agriculture, and deforestation. The experts also highlighted the recognition of traditional and Indigenous knowledge, the warning against unproven technological solutions, and the safeguarding of environmental defenders. The decision reinforces the right to a healthy climate and recognizes nature as a subject of rights.
