This is the sixth 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.
Henry Jiménez Guanipa, Venezuelan lawyer with over 30 years of experience in the energy industry, including electricity, natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. He holds a law degree from Santa María University, a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Heidelberg University (2001), and a doctorate in law from Ruhr University Bochum (2010).
Throughout history, humanity has experienced key moments when law and ethics merged to reshape our relationship with life and the Earth: from the abolition of slavery and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the bans on DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), the Montreal Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. Each of these milestones reminds us that when law aligns with ethics and science, we can safeguard not only people but also Nature that sustains our existence.
The recent Advisory Opinion OC-32/23 from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), notified on July 3, 2025, is a significant milestone. Although it arises in the context of a climate emergency, it represents a courageous effort and becomes a powerful tool to transform the relationship between States, peoples, and Nature.
For decades, climate science issued clear warnings, but the bridge to political and legal action remained incomplete. It was only in 1988 that we saw the birth of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a collective effort that began to articulate science with global climate policy, in a context where, until then, scientists worked largely in isolation in their laboratories. Similarly, this Advisory Opinion (AO) represents the missing step to affirm that the climate crisis is not only a technical or environmental issue but, above all, a matter of human rights and the rights of Nature.
The Court recognizes that climate change is not an abstract phenomenon: its impacts threaten life in all its forms, the health of living beings, the environment, and the cultural expressions that give meaning to our communities. But it goes even further. The Court establishes that States have concrete and immediate obligations, derived from international human rights law (IHRL) and the principle of non-regression. It is not only about protecting present generations but also future ones and Nature itself as a subject of rights. The Opinion goes beyond simple statements: it sets clear responsibilities for reducing and adapting to climate impacts, calls for preventive and remedial actions, and stresses the duty to act according to the precautionary principle. It also recognizes that States have differentiated responsibilities based on their historical contributions and current capacities to address the problem. Similarly, it elevates the prohibition of causing significant transboundary harm to the level of a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), establishing an ethical and legal standard of global importance.
These obligations do not arise in a vacuum: they are the result of a long journey of environmental awareness that began long before the current legal frameworks. After the Second World War, the world surrendered to the spell of industry and chemistry, believing that progress would have no limits or consequences. However, visionary voices like those of Fairfield Osborn and Jean Dorst warned that this unbridled advance was a dangerous game that threatened the planet’s balance. Humanity, euphoric over its apparent technological dominance, forgot that it inhabited a fragile place, dependent on interconnected and delicate natural systems.
Rachel Carson, in her seminal work Silent Spring (1962), sparked a global awakening that led to the ban of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), a pesticide that accumulated in ecosystems and harmed human health. Her book triggered widespread public outrage and political action that, years later, contributed to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Carson was a courageous woman who faced intense pressure from the chemical industry, which sought to discredit her. Without her efforts, the accumulation of toxic chemicals would have continued, harming both current and future generations — namely, us.
In the 1960s, Clair Patterson challenged the powerful oil industry and the manufacturers of lead additives. His struggle led to the progressive elimination of lead from gasoline in the United States, completed in 1995, and later replicated in Europe. Many would dismiss that courage as “activism” in a negative way, as if saving lives were unnecessary. But it was exactly that blend of science and bravery that ensured we still have birds singing and children breathing easily.
Carson’s and Patterson’s achievements were followed by another great collective conquest: the defense of the ozone layer. Before climate change became the central issue, humanity had already demonstrated its capacity to alter a vital planetary system — we literally opened a hole in the sky. The threat was not abstract: it involved genetic mutations, skin cancer, and irreversible ecological damage. Yet the response was swift: in 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted, providing a framework for international cooperation, and in 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed, establishing the progressive elimination of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances. This Protocol remains one of the greatest successes of environmental diplomacy. The ozone case proved that the international community can act decisively when science is clear and imminent danger. Today, in the face of the climate crisis, we cannot afford to “break the sky” twice.
Beginning in the 1960s, this scientific awareness began to reach beyond laboratories, driven by works such as Silent Spring and by the emergence of environmental movements. In the 1970s and 1980s, organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) helped consolidate civil society as a key actor, capable of transforming scientific evidence into public demand and political pressure. Since then, science and citizenship have forged an indispensable alliance — a pillar that today sustains the global response to the climate crisis. This convergence dissolves the false antagonism between “experts” and “ordinary people”: science needs society to have an impact on the world, and society needs science to guide its action.
The Advisory Opinion (AO) not only emphasizes the importance of public participation and access to information but also solidifies the right to science as essential for ensuring effective and equitable climate policies. Ultimately, the greatest hope resides in this synergy: the collective ability to transform evidence into law, conscience into action, and indignation into tangible measures that safeguard life and Nature.
Today, as the waves swallow coasts and fires consume forests, the Advisory Opinion OC-32/23 stands as both a legal and moral beacon. This progress complements an extraordinary regional achievement: the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement). Together, the Agreement and the Advisory Opinion create an unprecedented legal and ethical framework for Latin America and the Caribbean. These are vital tools to confront the climate emergency and protect human rights and Nature in all its diversity. The planet has spoken. Science has spoken. Now, it is up to us to turn law into action.
Suggested citation: Henry Jiménez Guanipa, From Scientific Alarm to Legal Mandate: The Advisory Opinion and the Defense of the Planet, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Nov. 26, 2025, at: https://www.iconnectblog.com/symposium-on-the-inter-american-court-advisory-opinions-regarding-the-climate-emergency-and-the-right-to-care-part-6-from-scientific-alarm-to-legal-mandate-the-advisory-opinion-and-the-defense-of-th/