Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue: InterAmerican Court of Human Rights Judgment Released
Last week, there was some breaking news from one of the highest courts in the world: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its groundbreaking Advisory Opinion on the human rights obligations of States in the context of the climate crisis.
In this article, we explore its significance - including for Aotearoa New Zealand, which still lags behind the rest of the world by not recognising a right to clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in our Bill of Rights Act.
Background
In January 2023, Chile and Colombia submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, seeking clarification regarding what the human rights obligations of states are in the context of climate change.
Advisory opinions provide an authoritative interpretation of human rights law, but are non-binding.
The decision
In releasing the much-anticipated advisory opinion, the Court unanimously confirmed that, according to the best available science, our current situation constitutes a climate emergency. Further, they said that this climate emergency can only be adequately addressed through urgent and effective actions for mitigation, adaptation and progress towards sustainable development.
It is in the context of the climate emergency that the Court affirmed that States have obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the human rights impacts of climate change. The Court explicitly recognised that the right to a healthy environment includes the right to a stable climate, and that exceeding 1.5°C of global warming would threaten the enjoyment of multiple human rights.
Some of the key findings include:
The Court emphasised that States' obligations extend to both individual and collective dimensions, and may include responsibility for cross-border harm where a causal link is established.
States must adopt effective mitigation and adaptation measures aligned with climate science, regulate private actors, and cooperate with other States, particularly under the principles of equity and differentiated responsibility.
In general, in order to comply with the obligation to respect human rights in the context of the climate emergency, States must refrain from any conduct that generates a setback, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change.
In terms of private actors specifically, the advisory opinion states that “this Court has no doubt that companies are called upon to play a fundamental role in addressing the climate emergency”. In this regard, States must adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations by state and private companies, and to investigate and punish them, as well as to guarantee reparations for their consequences when such violations occur.
The Court also emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, including public participation, access to justice, and access to information, which includes taking measures against climate disinformation, noting that States must be channels of information backed by science, not disinformation.
The Court also affirmed that special protections are owed to Indigenous Peoples, children, future generations and environmental defenders.
Speaking in relation to environmental defenders, the Court explained that by virtue of the right to defend human rights, States have a special duty to protect environmental defenders, which includes counteracting the “criminalisation” of the defence of the environment.
Climate Change as Human Rights Issue - New Zealand still lags behind
This is another important international legal development in global climate litigation that clearly articulates climate change as a human rights issue.
Aotearoa New Zealand is a global outlier in not clearly considering climate change as a human rights issue. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ has been advocating for Aotearoa New Zealand to recognise the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment within our Bill of Rights Act. Aotearoa New Zealand is part of a shrinking minority of only 20% of countries to not legally recognise this right - but it was voted down by our current government in early 2024.
However, our courts remain open to the possibility that the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment may fall under our Bill of Rights Act, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment may support this. International jurisprudence can and does play a role in our courts. A clearer international legal framework can assist domestic courts in interpreting domestic climate laws, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
We saw this in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith v Attorney-General [2024] NZCA 692 last year. In that case, while the Court of Appeal ultimately struck out the claim, they did find that it was not clearly untenable that the right not to be deprived of life under s 8 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was engaged by climate change in the context of a potentially unlivable planet - including because this is “consistent with international jurisprudence on equivalent rights”. As noted in Smith v Attorney-General, the relevance of international jurisprudence on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which NZBORA is based on) has also been emphasised in the Supreme Court in Fitzgerald v R [2021] 1 NZLR 551 (SC) where Winkelmann CJ said “it is important…to reflect that [NZBORA] has common law, statutory and international antecedents” when applying and interpreting it.
Climate Litigation in International Courts
As the Grantham Institute's 2025 Climate Litigation Snapshot from a few weeks ago found, the continued escalating number of climate cases across domestic, regional, and international bodies shows a groundswell of concern about climate change and its impacts. Until a few years ago, climate litigation was primarily unfolding in domestic courts, but the shift to international forums underscores that climate change is a global issue requiring global solutions.
This Advisory Opinion is one of a number of developments in international courts:
In 2020, the first applications on human rights and climate change were filed before the European Court of Human Rights, and were eventually decided in 2024.
In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) released an advisory opinion where it determined that all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions constitute pollution of the marine environment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ITLOS confirmed that States Parties are obligated under UNCLOS to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
On March 29, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations regarding climate change. The New Zealand Government, in their legal submissions to the ICJ last year, submitted that states shouldn’t be bound by international human rights law to reduce their climate pollution. This opinion is expected to be released later in July this year.
Further, in May 2025, the Pan African Lawyers Union, in collaboration with others, submitted a request to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for an advisory opinion on States’ obligations in relation to climate change.
Notes:
This is based on the unofficial English translation of the judgment. The official opinion can be found here however at the time of writing, no official English translation was available.
For more information on the role of advisory opinions, the following textbook was released last week: Dr Maria Antonia Tigre and Armando Rocha The Role of Advisory Opinions in International Law in the Context of the Climate Crisis (1st ed, Brill, Boston, Massachusetts, 2025).