The Ruling and the Mirror

Much of the commentary that has emerged so far, in this symposium and in seemingly every other corner of the internet, focuses on the legal content of the opinion: the articulation of States’ obligations under international law, the rejection of the lex specialis argument, and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, inter many alia. Yet beyond the legal reasoning and doctrinal outcomes lies something else. The opinion is also an act of identity performance: a way for the ICJ to speak about itself.

What the Court Didn’t Say

The aim of this blog post is not to summarise the ICJ’s opinion or assess its overall relevance for international law. Instead, it draws attention to some of the issues that the ICJ did not address, or where it might have gone further, by providing more depth, precision, and guidance. By focusing on what the ICJ did not say, we can gain a better understanding of how it navigates its institutional constraints, political sensitivities, and the evolving terrain of international climate litigation.

A Right Foundational to Humanity’s Existence

For the second time in a month, one of the world’s highest judicial authorities has issued an advisory opinion on the climate crisis that highlights the importance of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Echoing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion 32/25, on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously held that this right constitutes a binding norm of international law.

Enhanced Due Diligence

The IACtHR establishes that States have a series of obligations to ensure a healthy environment and climate, and prevent violations of human rights. To this end, the IACtHR develops the standard of enhanced due diligence as a binding framework for State action. This standard includes elements aimed at ensuring that the response to climate change is effective, fair, transparent, and evidence-based (para. 224). This blog post discusses the heightened due diligence standard, as clarified by the IACtHR, and outlines nine key elements of this standard.

Corporations, Climate, and the Court

Corporations, especially those engaged in fossil fuel production, agriculture, construction, and transportation, play a significant role in the climate crisis and in its human rights impacts. It is thus of critical importance that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25) not only directly addresses corporate climate and human rights impacts, but also provides some pathways forward on these persistent barriers to accountability. This blog discusses AO-32/25’s holdings and innovations as related to business and human rights and reflects on their broader legal implications.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

“An existential threat” – this is how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) characterized climate change in its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. In the most significant development in international climate law since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the ICJ outlined numerous obligations that could significantly shape the contours of international environmental law and global climate governance.

Protecting Rights in the Anthropocene

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its long-awaited Advisory Opinion No. 32 (AO-32/25) on the “Climate Emergency and Human Rights”. With its opinion, the IACtHR became the first human rights monitoring body to recognize that a healthy climate is an autonomous and justiciable human right. This blog post traces the emergence of this new right within the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) and highlights its most transformative elements for theory and practice.

Addressing Accountability in the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion

With AO-32/25, the IACtHR has delivered a historic and bold affirmation that climate change is not only an environmental emergency but also a profound human rights crisis, one that requires both prevention and reparation. By articulating States’ duties to provide remedies, the IACtHR has moved the conversation to one of legal accountability and remediation.

Reproductive Rights and the Climate Crisis

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) published its long-awaited Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25). The Opinion responds to a 2023 request from Colombia and Chile, asking the IACtHR to clarify the scope of States’ obligations to address the climate emergency under international human rights law. While the decision marks a significant step toward recognizing the climate crisis as a human rights issue, this blog post aims to shed light on a critical omission in the IACtHR’s reasoning: the impact of environmental degradation and the climate emergency on sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The Bloom of Nature’s Rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) advisory opinion on human rights and the climate emergency (AO-32/25) addresses numerous dimensions of the climate crisis, setting an important precedent for the protection of our planet. This post focuses on one particularly significant development: the IACtHR’s recognition of Nature as a subject of rights. We argue that the IACtHR’s pronouncements on this subject mark the advent of an ecocentric paradigm whose implications are likely to be far-reaching and transformative.