A New Era for Climate Change: When Climate Meets the Law

Emma McHugh

Climate change has long been framed as a political and scientific challenge. Increasingly, however, it is becoming a legal one.  

In a landmark advisory opinion, Nancy Hernández López, president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, emphasised that climate change presents ‘extraordinary risks’. In its extensive 234-page opinion, the court concluded that states have legal obligations to safeguard both present and future generations from the consequences of climate change.  

These obligations include taking ‘“urgent and effective” measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.  

The court also emphasised that states must protect environmental defenders and ensure access to justice for those advocating for environmental protection. This recognition is significant given the risks faced by those working to defend land, ecosystems, and climate rights. According to Global Witness, more than 2,000 environmental defenders worldwide have been killed since 2012.  

The advisory process was initiated after Colombia and Chile requested clarification in 2023 on the legal duties of states in responding to climate change and preventing violations of human rights.  

In doing so, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognised a human right to a stable climate, confirming that states have a legal duty to protect it, a finding that no domestic or international court had ever made before.  

Addressing climate change through human rights law has historically been difficult due to the fragmented nature of international legal frameworks. As Professor Joyeeta Gupta, co-chair of the Earth Commission, notes, environmental treaties, human rights conventions, and trade agreements often operate in separate legal spheres, allowing states to shift or limit responsibility for climate harm. As a result, climate change has long been discussed primarily in technical terms, such as emissions targets and temperature thresholds, rather than in relation to its impact on people.  

However, the recent advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights represents a significant legal development by recognising the close relationship between climate action and the protection of human rights. For Professor Joyeeta Gupta, this shift is long overdue but vital, as “it finally tells governments; you cannot talk about climate without talking about people”. 

The advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights represents a landmark legal step, but it also forms part of a broader global trend. For instance, in October 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognised a ‘right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’, followed by a similar resolution from the UN General Assembly in July 2022. While these resolutions are not legally binding, they underscore the growing international consensus on the importance of linking environmental protection with human rights.  

Real-world Impacts of Climate Change  

The real-world implications of climate change highlight why this legal recognition matters. According to the World Health Organisation, around 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change, and between 2030 and 2050, climate change is projected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from factors such as undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea, and heat stress. Heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, storms, floods, and rising sea levels are already devastating communities worldwide, and these impacts are expected to become catastrophic if governments fail to curb emissions and limit global temperature rises. Recent research estimates that 37% of heat-related deaths are directly attributable to human-induced climate change.  

These figures illustrate that climate change is not only an environmental issue, but also a growing threat to human health and wellbeing.  

Everyone everywhere should have the right to breathe clean air, drink safe water, eat healthy food, and live amid a stable, non-toxic climate, with access to information, participation in environmental decisions and justice, rights that are directly threatened by the impacts of climate change. Current realities show that these rights are far from universal, as WHO data indicates that 2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, while 600 million suffer from foodborne illnesses each year, many of which are worsened by climate-related environmental changes.  Realising these rights depends on all states taking cooperative and equitable action at the international level.  

As Nancy Hernández López observed, ‘causing massive and irreversible environmental harm…alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions. Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses.’ 

While the advisory opinion represents an important step in recognising the human rights dimensions of climate change, significant gaps remain in international law. For example, displacement caused by climate impacts is one of the most obvious consequences of climate injustice, yet international law still does not formally recognise ‘climate refugees’. In 2021 alone, over 38 million people were newly displaced by climate-related disasters, undermining their access to fundamental rights such as adequate housing, health, education, and personal security. This highlights that, although progress is being made, legal frameworks remain insufficient to fully protect those most affected by climate change.  

Conclusion 

The advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights marks a historic moment in the intersection of climate change and human rights. By recognising a legal duty to protect a stable climate, the court has set a precedent that elevates climate change from a political or scientific issue to a matter of enforceable legal responsibility. Yet, as the figures outlined earlier demonstrate, the scale of climate-related impacts makes it clear that urgent action is needed. The recognition of these rights and the obligation of states to uphold them must be translated into concrete action through coordinated, equitable international measures.  

While gaps in international law persist, the advisory opinion offers a roadmap for holding governments accountable and ensuring that human rights remain at the centre of climate solutions. Ultimately, protecting the climate is no longer a choice; it is a legal and moral imperative with direct consequences for the health, safety, and dignity of people everywhere.