Top Latin American court upholds right to “healthy climate”, urges fossil fuel control

Inter-American Court of Human Rights issues a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, urging states to regulate fossil fuels and corporate emissions

Latin America’s top court of human rights has decided for the first time that people have the right to a “healthy climate” without “dangerous” human interference, and has urged states to regulate fossil fuel extraction and exploration, in a landmark climate decision.

Culminating a two-year process that involved more than 260 submissions from governments, companies and local communities, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) on Thursday handed down an advisory opinion requested in 2023 by Chile and Colombia to clarify state obligations related to the climate crisis.

In a public hearing held at the court’s headquarters in the Costa Rican capital of San José, Judge Nancy Hernández read out the trailblazing decision on climate change, which for the first time in IACHR history stated a clear link between the “climate emergency” and human rights. The opinion also recognises that states and companies have an obligation to mitigate global warming and its impacts.

“The evidence we saw during the hearings and written submissions shows us that there is no more margin for indifference,” said Judge Hernández. “This is a contribution from law, but law alone is not enough. Success depends on what each one of us can do.”

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean states, where its advisory opinions are binding. But the strongly-worded climate ruling states that it is binding for all signatories of the Organization of American States, including the US and Canada.

What does the advisory opinion say?

The landmark 230-page ruling mentions for the first time a subcategory of the human right to a healthy environment, by introducing a “right to a healthy climate”. Court judges said that this is defined as a climate system “free of anthropogenic interference dangerous” for nature and people.

According to the court ruling, states are also expected to cooperate to take actions to reduce emissions that are “as ambitious as possible”, and are obliged to prevent harm by carrying out environmental impact studies.

Recognising the significant climate impact of specific industries, the judges said states have a “minimum” duty to “supervise and control” exploration, extraction and processing of fossil fuels, as well as the cement and agriculture industries.

The advisory opinion also states that governments must establish “differentiated obligations” for companies with higher historical emissions, and impose stricter “duties on companies that carry out activities that generate greater GHG emissions”.

Sergio Diaz, legal director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the opinion makes clear that governments in the Americas must take more ambitious measures against climate change, including addressing the main source of planet-heating emissions: fossil fuels.

“In this context, the adoption of new binding norms that clearly regulate the non-proliferation of fossil fuels is essential if states hope to comply with their human rights obligations,” he said in a statement.

Luisa Gómez, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the court decision was innovative – not only because of what it says, but also because there was a very extensive process behind it.

Aside from the 263 written submissions, the court judges carried out three site visits, holding one hearing in Barbados and two in Brazil, with the aim of reaching communities most affected by climate change. The court said it was “the advisory process with most participation in the tribunal’s history”.

“Historic” moment for climate litigation

CIEL’s Gómez hailed the court decision as “historic” and a “watershed moment”, due to the detailed new tools it creates for litigation and policy-making, and the potential for influencing other human rights courts.

Catalina Fernández, head of Multilateral Human Rights at Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Climate Home that the court decision sets a “more demanding standard” that can help governments and civil society push climate action forward.

“Each state has different realities and there is no unique recipe for everyone. But we hope that this decision can set a minimum standard,” Fernández said. “The court gives us a hand in this process but we still need political will from governments and civil society.”

The advisory opinion also provides a clear set of guidelines for countries to bring to the COP30 summit in Belem later this year, said Liliana Ávila, director of human rights and environment at the nonprofit Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA).

Gómez, of CIEL, said that the court decision “makes life easier for everyone”, including states and communities wanting to bring forward more climate cases.

“There’s less room for impunity. It’s clear now where climate change comes from – and it’s clear that those responsible need to take measures,” said Gómez.

Other human rights courts have recognised that the failure of states to address climate change can breach human rights, with climate cases increasingly making it to the world’s highest courts, according to a 2025 report by the London School of Economics (LSE).

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had breached the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to cut planet-warming emissions.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is expected to deliver an advisory opinion on the legal obligation of states to limit climate change later this year. Experts said the ICJ ruling is expected to be influenced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decision.

The climate-vulnerable Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which led the global push for an ICJ opinion, also participated in the IACHR proceedings by making a written submission.

Responding to the Americas ruling, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Energy and Environment, noted that all regional and international courts have an important role to play in advancing climate justice.

“Together, they can pave the way for a more integrated approach to international law that addresses the human rights dimensions and remedy the historical climate injustices that the Global South increasingly suffer from in the climate emergency,” he said in a statement.

Cover photo:  Judge Nancy Hernandez reads the advisory opinion of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights on climate change, during a public hearing at the court's headquarters in Costa Rica. (Photo: Inter-American Court on Human Rights)