On July 3rd, 2025, Advisory Opinion No. 32 on Human Rights and the Climate Emergency may have laid the groundwork.
Last Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released Advisory Opinion No. 32, a landmark legal interpretation on the intersection of climate and human rights, requested by Chile and Colombia in January 2023. This marks the most participatory process in the Court’s history, with over 263 written submissions from nearly 600 contributors—including states, international organizations, civil society, Indigenous leaders, scientists, and youth.
With around 185 delegations participating across three public hearings in Barbados, Brasília, and Manaus, the process brought together an unprecedented range of voices. While the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to members of the Organization of American States (OAS), the implications of this opinion ripple outward, offering a transformative legal foundation for rights-based climate action globally.
In its opinion, the Court sets a historic legal precedent, affirming that states have binding obligations to prevent climate-related harm and safeguard a wide spectrum of human rights. These include the right to a healthy environment and climate, access to environmental information, meaningful participation and consultation, and special protections for vulnerable groups. The Court embraces a systems lens, recognizing the deep interconnections between environmental protection, climate, ecosystems, and the well-being of all communities. As it states:
“From the right to a healthy environment derives the right to a climate system which sustains life, and that this right, in turn, is fundamental for a free and orderly society.”
Advisory Opinion No. 32 offers more than legal recognition—it lays out a bold and actionable roadmap for climate governance. Grounded in scientific evidence and anchored in human rights law, it calls on states to go beyond reactive measures and embed prevention, mitigation, and cooperation into every level of public policy.
The Case for a Systems Lens
Advisory Opinion No. 32 boldly affirms what climate and environmental advocates have long insisted: we must understand the environment as a complex, interconnected system, and law must reflect that. The Court explicitly acknowledges the interdependence between the protection of the environment, the climate system, and nature in all its components. It adopts a whole systems lens—a framework Global Choices has long advocated—emphasizing that harm to one element ripples across the whole.
“From the right to a healthy environment derives the right to a climate system which sustains life, and that this right, in turn, is fundamental for a free and orderly society.”
Crucially, while the right to a healthy environment has already been recognized through UN General Assembly resolutions and other international instruments, AO-32 clarifies and elevates this by recognizing an independent right to a healthy climate. The Court distinguishes climate-related harm from other forms of environmental damage:
“The protection of the climate system acquires specific and differential features… The impact on the climate system constitutes a form of environmental damage which, although related, can and must be distinguished from other forms of environmental damage.”
The Advisory Opinion emphasizes the transboundary nature of climate harm and the need for legal frameworks that reflect ecological realities—not artificial political boundaries. This aligns strongly with Global Choices’ core message: no part of the planet exists in isolation, and protection must be holistic, coordinated, and courageous.
Equity at the Center of Climate Justice
Another groundbreaking dimension of AO-32 is its firm grounding in climate justice. The Court explicitly refers to both intergenerational and intragenerational equity—placing obligations on states to protect the climate system not only for present communities but for future generations as well.
It also affirms that equity must be internalized within states. Adaptation and mitigation policies must take into account the experiences of those already facing systemic inequality. In evaluating vulnerabilities and planning responses, the Court calls on states to consider how the climate emergency disproportionately affects:
“Women, children and adolescents, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant, peasant and fisherfolk communities, the elderly, persons in a situation of mobility, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ persons, and human rights defenders.”
This clear call for procedural and substantive equity aligns with our work at Global Choices—where we strive to amplify voices from frontline and historically marginalized communities, including youth voices through the Arctic Angels. It’s a profound affirmation that climate law must not only protect the planet but do so justly, inclusively, and without discrimination.
“The guarantee of intra- and intergenerational equity is essential for the interpretation and fulfilment of the duties deriving from the right to a healthy climate.”
Urgency, Irreversibility, and the Highest Level of Legal Obligation
The Advisory Opinion does not shy away from the reality of the climate crisis—it names it as such. The Court recognizes the “urgency, specificity and complexity” of the actions required to protect the climate system, raising the bar for states’ legal responsibilities.
Most strikingly, the Court frames the obligation to avoid causing irreversible damage to the climate system as a jus cogens norm—a non-derogable principle of international law. In legal terms, this elevates it to the highest tier of obligation: it cannot be suspended or ignored, even in times of emergency or conflict.
This recognition is monumental. It communicates not just the scale of the crisis, but the depth of legal responsibility that states must bear—now, not later.
At Global Choices, we are deeply moved by this groundbreaking step. AO-32 establishes not only the legal framework but also the language we need to advocate for equitable, systems-based climate policy. For years, we have underscored the urgent need to center a whole systems approach in climate governance.
Today’s fragmented governance structures often fall short—unable to respond effectively to the complex, transboundary nature of climate risks. In contrast, whole systems thinking fosters synergistic, integrated strategies that address climate, justice, and ecological integrity together—amplifying their collective impact.
As one corner of the Earth suffers, we all are affected. But just as harm transcends borders, so too can hope. When we collaborate across states and nations, we don’t just respond—we build equitable resilience, rooted in justice, care, and shared responsibility.
By Marlow Baines and Vedika Mandapati
Vedika Mandapati is a policy analyst with Global Choices working to draft the text of a moratorium on exploitative activity in the Central Arctic Ocean. She has represented Global Choices at the Arctic Circle Assembly in 2023 and looks forward to helping achieve our key policy initiatives. She is currently finishing her final year in international relations at the University of Cambridge. She’s a passionate climate justice activist, and for the past two years has focused her energies on removing Big Oil’s influence from climate research. As an organiser with Cambridge Climate Justice and the Campus Climate Network, she has helped make inroads for “Fossil Free Research” at the University.
