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.

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.

Against Authoritarian Determinism

A tempting but corrosive thought about Israeli politics – and about many other places – is that we have already embarked on a one-way road to authoritarianism. This “authoritarian determinism”, sometimes presented as a kind of seasoned realism, assumes that political trajectories continue unidirectionally. There is a world of difference between the many political contexts in which authoritarianism seems to be on the rise. And yet, a common question seems to be asked: in the face of authoritarian determinism, what can be saved of the democratic process? Until when does it make sense to hold on?

Suspension of EU Association Agreements Does Not Require Unanimity

In its meeting on 15 July 2025, the Council of the EU failed to adopt concrete measures vis-à-vis Israel, limiting itself to an “exchange of views on an inventory of possible follow-up measures”. This hesitant approach stands in contrast to clear indications that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (AA), and to the EU’s own obligation to work towards consolidating human rights and the principles of public international law pursuant to Article 21 TEU. While a suspension of the entire AA was never really foreseeable, an important question relates to the voting threshold within the Council that would apply to such a decision relating to the AA.

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. 

A Nod, Not a Leap

This post focuses on one notable aspect of AO-32/25 that has not received attention in other commentary–the IACtHR’s engagement with gender issues. We find that the IACtHR has taken an important step forward, both in recognizing gender as a key determinant of climate vulnerability and in identifying gender-responsive obligations on States. However, the IACtHR’s comments in this regard remain general and often gestural. The obligations identified are limited, narrow, and many relate to data gathering rather than substantial action.

Jus Cogens and the Climate Crisis

While there are many aspects of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25) that are new and groundbreaking, the inclusion of a reflection on jus cogens might have surprised some observers. The legal consequences of the recognition as jus cogens of the obligation not to create irreversible damage to the climate and the global environment are profound. Treaties violating the norm are void, customary international law rules cannot exist, nor does the persistent objector rule apply.