This is the fourth installment of the joint ICONnect/IberICOnnect symposium on the IACtHR Advisory Opinions on the climate emergency and the right to care. For the introduction, see here.
Laura Clérico, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Buenos Aires, and Honorary Professor of Human Rights and Comparative Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Principal Researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Argentina.
Sofía Reca Milanta, Doctor of Law from Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain). Professor of Constitutional Law at Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona). Master of Laws in Constitutional Law from the Menéndez Pelayo International University and the Center for Political and Constitutional Studies (Madrid, Spain). Master of Laws in Administrative Law from Austral University (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Lawyer from the National University of La Plata (Argentina). Fellow at the Doctrine Service of the Constitutional Court of Spain (Madrid). Currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Münster (Germany).
In the First Part of this entry, we addressed the structure and general content of Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (AO 32/25) of the IACtHR on climate emergency and human rights. We highlighted the differentiated and multidimensional approach to equality and climate vulnerability, a central axis of the AO. This approach requires adopting specific, reasonable, and context-specific measures to address climate risks, prevent and reduce their impacts, and promote sustainable adaptation processes. This approach must be integrated transversally with the “right to a healthy climate.”
In this Second Part, we delve into the obligations derived directly from said right, as well as those related to substantive and procedural rights, which are essential to guarantee a just and effective response to the climate emergency.
The right to a healthy climate as an autonomous economic, social, and environmental right
Innovatively, the Court recognizes a “human right to a healthy climate as an independent right” derived from the right to a healthy environment. This new right has specific and differential features in attention to its “functions, the elements that compose it, and the dynamics necessary to ensure its balance” (paras. 299-300).
The recognition of a healthy climate as an autonomous human right arises derivatively as a necessity, with both collective and individual dimensions. In its collective sphere, it protects the interests of present and future generations of human beings and other species to maintain a climate system suitable for ensuring their well-being and balance. In contrast, in its individual sphere, it protects the possibility of each person developing in a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interferences (paras. 298-316).
The purpose is to provide this new right with a basis of its own entity with a dual purpose: On the one hand, to enable the clear delimitation of specific state obligations in the face of the climate crisis and, on the other, to demand “its fulfillment autonomously with respect to other duties related to environmental protection” (paras. 300).
Specific obligations derived from the right to a healthy climate
a) Substantive
Protection of nature. Protection of ecosystems must take into account all their components, including humans, and the relationships that exist among them. But not only to enable the exercise of human rights (anthropocentric approach), but also for their own value (ecocentric approach). For this reason, the strategies and plans developed must uphold procedural rights and, along with them, the principle of environmental democracy.
Progressive advancement towards sustainable development. States are obliged to promote a transition focused on sustainable development, expressed in domestic regulations and public policies, as a duty of immediate enforceability (paras. 369-371).
Mitigation of carbon emissions. To address the climate emergency, States must take measures to advance in the progressive reduction of carbon emissions (derived from the use of fossil fuels, agriculture, livestock, deforestation, and other land uses). Mitigation strategies must be “as ambitious as possible,” incorporated into a binding norm for the State, set concrete deadlines for their compliance, and be progressively increased (para. 331).
Regulation of corporate behavior. States must adopt the necessary normative, regulatory, and administrative measures to ensure that companies establish and implement effective environmental and human rights due diligence processes, providing, through effective regulation, that these processes include mechanisms for continuous monitoring, independent evaluation, public access to relevant information, and adequate channels for participation and accountability (paras. 348-349).
Obligations in matters of climate adaptation: 1. National adaptation plan: States have the obligation to define an adaptation goal to the adverse effects of climate change and promote climate resilience through a “national adaptation plan” [1]; 2. Right to life, personal integrity and health, family life, private property and housing, freedom of residence and movement, water and food, work and social security, culture and education: the Court underscores the damage caused by environmental degradation and climate change as one of the most serious threats to the capacity of present and future generations. Consequently, it establishes various obligations for States, including: (i) developing the required infrastructure works to prevent natural disasters, (ii) developing climate policies related to human mobility produced by climate disasters or by the progressive degradation of the environment, (iii) guaranteeing family unity, (iv) ensuring an adequate supply of water, food, housing, work, and social security for all people affected by the climate emergency, (v) taking measures for the protection, conservation, and revaluation of natural and cultural heritage.
b) Procedural
Environmental democracy. The impacts of the climate emergency pose a serious challenge to democracy, which is exacerbated in a context in which democracies are weakening, by aggravating the underlying factors of conflict, putting pressure on public budgets, widening resource inequalities, and increasing political and social tensions (para. 461).
Political participation. States have the obligation to guarantee processes that ensure the meaningful participation of people under their jurisdiction in decision-making and climate change policies, as well as to guarantee the prior consultation of indigenous and tribal peoples (paras. 530-539).
Access to information.States have obligations to (i) produce climate information; (ii) disclose relevant information for the protection of human rights against climate change, and (iii) adopt measures against disinformation (paras. 521-527).
Right to science. In the context of the climate emergency, the right to science in its “procedural” phase is essential. States have obligations to (i) produce climate information; (ii) disclose relevant information for the protection of human rights against climate change, and (iii) adopt measures against disinformation (paras. 521-527).
Right to defend human rights. The special protection of environmental defenders obliges States to: (i) refrain from imposing illegitimate limits or restrictions on their work, (ii) formulate and implement adequate public policy instruments, and (iii) implement practices to ensure the free and safe exercise of their activities (paras. 566-567, 575-587).
Access to justice. States have the obligation to ensure central aspects in matters of access to justice, such as: (i) provision of sufficient means for the administration of justice in this context, (ii) application of the pro actione principle; (iii) celerity and reasonable time in judicial processes; (iv) adequate provisions regarding standing, (v) evidence, and (vi) reparation, as well as (vii) application of Inter-American standards (paras. 542-560).
Conclusions
The climate emergency is not just an environmental issue; it serves as a litmus test for international law and human rights. In a region as unequal as Latin America, the IACtHR has made significant strides towards a victim-centered and multidimensional approach. By prioritizing the voices and participation of individuals, the Court´s standards reflect the realities and material conditions that prevent people from fully enjoying their rights. These efforts are not just expressions of goodwill; they represent differentiated state obligations aimed at achieving genuine equality. This approach is vital not only for the fulfillment and development of rights but also for the attribution of responsibility, reparations, and guarantees against future violations.
The climate emergency is not simply a legal challenge; it is an existential crisis that threatens all forms of life and the health of our planet. Profound transformations, bold decisions, and a departure from the status quo are imperative. In this context, the IACtHR has taken decisive action that challenges the foundations of international law and sends a clear message to States: the time for inaction has come to an end.
[1] These include, among others, measures for the management of coastal areas, water resources, and agriculture, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of areas affected by drought.Suggested citation: Laura Clérico and Sofía Reca Milanta, Advisory Opinion 32 of 2025 on climate emergency and human rights. Climate inequality and vulnerability: from the margins to the center II, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Nov. 21, 2025, at: https://www.iconnectblog.com/symposium-on-the-inter-american-court-advisory-opinions-regarding-the-climate-emergency-and-the-right-to-care-part-4-advisory-opinion-32-of-2025-on-climate-emergency-and-human-rights-climate-inequality-and-vulnerability-from-the-margins-to-the-center-ii/