![](https://worldnewsradar.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/BANNER-RENT-300X47-COLUMN-1.png"){kind=small}
A leading human rights tribunal has affirmed that access to a stable climate is a fundamental human right and that nations are legally obligated to protect it. In a pivotal advisory opinion released by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), the court declared that climate change presents severe risks—especially for the most vulnerable—and emphasized that urgent, science-based action is necessary to safeguard both current and future generations.
I. LANDMARK CLIMATE RULING BY IACHR
1. States Must Act on Climate Obligations
The IACHR’s advisory opinion underscores that nations have legal duties to protect people from the impacts of climate change. This includes taking immediate and effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate disruptions, promote international cooperation, and counter climate disinformation.
2. Triggered by Colombia and Chile’s Request
In 2023, Colombia and Chile requested clarification from the IACHR on the legal responsibilities of states in addressing climate change and its intersection with human rights. The resulting opinion builds on a wealth of public hearings and written submissions from experts, organizations, and climate-affected individuals across the Americas.
II. CLIMATE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS
1. Broad Legal Foundations
While the court’s core role is interpreting the American Convention on Human Rights, it extended its analysis to include regional and global legal frameworks. Its findings apply not only to signatories but to all 35 Organization of American States (OAS) members, including the United States and Canada.
2. Recognition of a Stable Climate as a Right
For the first time, the IACHR officially recognized the right to a stable climate as part of the broader right to a healthy environment. This places a legal duty on states to regulate both public and private entities responsible for emissions.
3. Corporate Accountability
The court stated that all businesses must avoid infringing on human rights, but particularly emphasized the responsibility of high-emitting industries—such as fossil fuel extraction, cement production, and industrial agriculture. States are urged to enforce stricter regulations on these sectors, including revised operating rules, taxation reforms, and contributions toward equitable transition efforts.
III. TRANSFORMATION TOWARD CLIMATE JUSTICE
1. Enforcing Corporate Responsibility
According to the court, governments must ensure multinational corporations are held accountable for emissions generated by their subsidiaries. If these entities fail to comply, states should consider suspending harmful activities and demanding reparations for the climate damage inflicted.
2. Ensuring a Just Energy Transition
Nations are also required to oversee a fair transition to clean energy, one that does not perpetuate or create new human rights violations—such as those potentially caused by the mining of critical minerals used in green technologies.
3. Reimagining Climate Policy
Marcella Ribeiro of the Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente noted that this ruling offers more than a shift to renewable energy—it opens the door to a deep, structural change that addresses longstanding social and environmental injustices.
IV. RIGHTS OF NATURE AND RESTORATION DUTIES
1. Nature’s Legal Standing
The IACHR acknowledged that nature itself holds rights and emphasized that states are responsible for repairing ecological harm caused by climate change. This reinforces the idea that the environment must be protected not only for humans but as an entity with its own inherent rights.
2. Ending Impunity for Environmental Harm
Luisa Gómez from the Center for International Environmental Law praised the court’s recognition of the direct link between climate impacts and human rights. She emphasized that the court’s decision challenges the historical impunity surrounding environmental degradation.
V. GLOBAL CONTEXT AND LEGAL IMPACT
1. A Trend Among Global Courts
The IACHR is the second of four major international courts to deliver an advisory opinion on climate change. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea previously ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants harming marine ecosystems, placing the onus on states to control them. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights are in various stages of their own reviews.
2. Legal Influence Despite Nonbinding Nature
Though advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant authority by interpreting existing legal obligations. They are expected to influence both future court cases and political negotiations related to climate policy.
3. A Guide for Future Climate Action
Viviana Krsticevic, head of the Centre for Justice and International Law, welcomed the opinion as a valuable guide for shaping comprehensive climate strategies. She believes it could have a major role in informing global conversations ahead of COP30 in Brazil.
CONCLUSION
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ landmark opinion affirms that climate protection is not just a policy matter but a legal and moral imperative rooted in human rights. By recognizing a stable climate as a legal entitlement and placing obligations on both states and corporations, the court has provided a foundational framework for holding climate actors accountable and guiding just, inclusive solutions to the environmental crisis. This ruling is expected to shape legal standards, influence national strategies, and inspire international collaboration in the critical fight against climate change.
