Category: Indigenous peoples’ rights

Categories
Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights International Court of Justice Paris Agreement Sea-level rise Vanuatu Vulnerability

ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

Summary:
On 29 March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify States’ international obligations concerning climate change. This resolution, Res. A/77/L.58, was prepared on the initiative of the Government of Vanuatu, and was adopted by consensus by the UNGA. This request led to the largest (in terms of participants) proceedings before the ICJ to date, with 97 States and 11 international organisations making written or oral submissions. On 23 July 2025, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, which was immediately received as a historic and landmark contribution to clarifying the international obligations of States regarding climate change.

Background:
In September 2021, during the UN General Assembly’s annual meeting, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, Hon. Bob Loughman Weibur, announced that the country would build a coalition of States to seek an advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The initiative received support from a large number of co-sponsoring states.

The proposal aims to contest “environmental devastation and large-scale violations of human rights for the most vulnerable”. Under the slogan of “bringing the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court”, this initative was originally spearheaded by a group of students from the University of the South Pacific. By July 2022, the alliance behind the initative included over 1500 civil society organisations in 130 countries. It also received the endorsement of the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS).

In July 2022, Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change, Hon. Silas Bule Melve, clarified the country’s ambitions for the advisory opinion. He stated that “[t]his is not a court case, and we do not seek to assign blame. But we do seek a credible way to bolster climate ambition moving forward to save the Paris Agreement and our blue planet”. The Republic’s legal team in this endeavor is led by Julian Aguon and Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh of the Pacific law firm Blue Ocean Law.

This approach follows an earlier initiative from 2012, by Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which did not manage to rally a majority of General Assembly members in suport of presenting a question concerning climate change to the ICJ.

Question put to the ICJ:
The resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 March 2023. It decided, in accordance with Article 96 UN Charter, to request the ICJ, pursuant to Article 65 of its Statute, to render an advisory opinion on the following question:

“Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment,

(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;

(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:

(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?

(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?”

Interim developments:
On 25 April 2023, the President of the ICJ made an Order organizing the proceedings and fixing time limits for written submissions by States and international organisations in this case.

In June 2023, the Court authorized the European Union, the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law and the International Union for Conservation of Nature to participate in the proceedings.

On 26 November 2024, preceding its oral hearings in these proceedings, the Court held an expert hearing with a group of past and present authors of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aiming “to enhance the Court’s understanding of the key scientific findings which the IPCC has delivered through its periodic assessment reports covering the scientific basis, impacts and future risks of climate change, and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

Oral hearings:
From December 2-13 2024, the ICJ held oral hearings in these proceedings. The proceedings included involvement from 97 states and 11 international organizations, making them the ICJ’s most extensive to date, and for some States marking their first-ever involvement with the Court.

The written comments received by the Court (91 written statements as well as and 62 comments on those same statements) were made available online during the course of the proceedings alongside verbatim reports of the oral interventions made and a video livestream.

The written and oral proceedings covered a wide range of topics, from the meaning of CBDR-RC and equity, to the recognition of the human right to a healthy environment, to the interplay between international climate law and other areas of international law (e.g. its relationship with human rights frameworks), with some States arguing that the former represented a lex specialis to the latter that precluded further-reaching obligations under human rights law.

Several judges also asked questions during the oral proceedings, to which the participants were given leave to reply.

Advisory opinion of 23 July 2025:

In its advisory opinion, which can be read in full below, the ICJ was concerned with identifying the most directly relevant applicable law concerning the international obligations of States in the context of climate change. As this was not a contentious case, it did not apply the law to the context of a specific State.

The opinion covered a broad range of aspects: from asserting the role of climate science for the law, to confirming non-refoulement obligations and the ITLOS findings on greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution, to holding that sea-level rise does not deprive countries of marine or land territory or their statehood. The below sets out core aspects of the opinion in a non-exhaustive way.

First, importantly, the Court did not accept the lex specialis argument made by some states to try to insulate climate change from all obligations except for those enshrined in the climate treaties (and particularly the Paris Agreement). The Court found that the relevant international instruments complement each other, and that it could not find any actual inconsistencies between the climate treaties and other relevant rules of international law. This meant that the Court considered various areas of law applicable, and found that States have obligations under the climate treaties but also under customary law, environmental treaties, and human rights law. In doing so, the Court held that the international law enshrines binding obligations also for states that terminate their membership in the Paris Agreement.

The ICJ’s opinion extensively examines the obligations contained in the international climate law framework. In doing so, it considered the temperature target that States must try to stay below. The Court interpreted the Paris Agreement based on COP decisions (which, it held, represent “subsequent agreements” under the VCLT) and in doing so recognized the 1,5 degree warming threshold as States’ primary goal, over the 2 degree warming threshold also enshrined in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. Moving to mitigation, the Court held that that Paris Agreement requires States to set out a nationally determined contribution (NDC) based on stringent standard of due diligence. Rejecting the argument that these could not be subjected to any substantive review, it held that NDCs must satisfy certain standards under the Paris Agreement and that the NDCs of all States must, when taken together as a group, be capable of realizing the objectives of the Agreement as set out in article 2 (the 1,5 degree temperature goal).

The Court also examined the adaptation obligations under the Paris Agreement. It held that States have legally binding obligations to take adaptation planning actions. The fulfilment of these adaptation obligations is to be assessed against a standard of due diligence. That means that it is incumbent on States parties to the Paris Agreement to take measures that can enhance adaptive capacity and reduce vulnerability to climate-related impacts.

Turning to obligations under customary international law, including the prohibition of significant transboundary environmental harm (the ‘no harm’ rule), the Court held that this obligation applied to the context of climate change, and was not restricted to territorially limited, local situations. The Court recognized that the standard of due diligence for preventing significant harm to the climate system is stringent. This meant that States are expected to display a heightened degree of vigilance and that preventive measures are required. Customary international law, the Court held, also enshrines a duty for States to cooperate with each other. In addition, the Court flagged principles of sustainable development, CBDR-RC, equity, intergenerational equity, precautionary principle as applicable guiding principles.

On human rights law, the Court held that a wide range of human rights were at risk in the context of climate change. Concerning the applicability of human rights obligations, it held that these were not displaced by the climate treaties as a lex specialis. Instead, it held that “the core human rights treaties, including the ICESCR [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], and the human rights recognized under customary international law form part of the most directly relevant applicable law” (para. 145). It went on to find that international human rights law must inform States’ obligations under other sources of obligations, including the climate treaties and customary international law, and vice versa, in the interest of a harmonized interpretation (para. 404). The Court also recognized the importance of the right to a healthy environment, which it described as “inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights” (para. 393). It also indicated that human rights norms could potentially apply extraterritorially.

The Court also made various findings concerning reparations, although not aimed directly ad human rights law or individual redress. It held that the main mitigation obligations set forth in the climate change treaties apply erga omnes and applied the customary rules on reparations (ARSIWA). Notably, it also emphasized the existence of production-side obligations (“[f]ailure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State” (para. 427).

Full text of the advisory opinion:

187-20250723-adv-01-00-enDownload

Further reading:

Suggested citation:
International Court of Justice, advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States in respect of climate change, 23 July 2025, no. 187.

Last updated:
3 October 2025.

Categories
Biodiversity Brazil Deforestation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights International Criminal Court Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health

The Prosecutor v. Bolsonaro

Summary:
On 12 October 2021, the Austrian NGO AllRise, which advocates for interests linked with the environment, democracy, and the rule of law, submitted a communication to the International Criminal Court in the Hague concerning then-acting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Although NGOs cannot initiate proceedings before the ICC, the Prosecutor can do so proprio motu (Art. 15(1) Rome Statute), and the communication’s aim is to convince the Prosectuor to do so regarding President Bolsonaro’s policy on the Amazon rainforest.

AllRise contends that the Bolsonaro government’s socio-economic policy has put the lives of environmental advocates at risk, and has dismantled the protections of the environment that were previously available under domestic law, which as facilitated the activities of criminal networks. By failing to prosecute the perpetrators of environmental crimes and undermining the protection of the climate, human health, and justice, AllRise argues, the Bolsonaro government has committed crimes against humanity, as proscribed by the Rome Statute of the ICC.

The NGO’s communication is supported by the Climate Observatory (Observatório do Clima), a network of 70 Brazilian civil society organizations.

Human rights claims:
AllRise argues that ‘these Environmental Dependents and Defenders have been and continue to be the subject of Crimes Against Humanity through severe deprivations of their fundamental and universal right to a healthy environment (also known as R2E) and other human rights related thereto’ (para. 15). It likewise invoked the rights of indigenous peoples, arguing that ‘[t]he destruction of the rainforest and the rivers of the Amazon has a devastating impact on the traditional, cultural and spiritual way of life of Indigenous peoples and others who depend upon the forest’ (para. 164). The NGO also describes the background of attacks and violence against environmental activists and human rights defenders (paras. 201-208).

More information:
To read the full complaint, click here.

Categories
Adaptation Australia Domestic court Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Sea-level rise Uncategorized Vulnerability

Pabai Pabai & Another v. Australia (Torres Strait Islander case)

Summary:
In a case modelled on the Dutch Urgenda case, a group of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders living on islands off Australia’s coast initiated domestic class action proceedings before the Federal court of Australia to claim that the Australian government has failed to protect them from climate change, leading to the progressive destruction of their ancestral islands.

This case was brought by two Torres Straits Islanders on behalf of the residents of Torres Strait Islands who have suffered loss and damage due to Australia’s conduct from about 1985. The claim categorically frames the harms allegedly suffered by the group and the risks they face as being caused by Australia’s failure to exercise due care in protecting them from climate-related harms. Apart from sea level rise, extreme weather events, harm to marine ecosystems and increased disease risks, the plaintiffs allege that Australia’s conduct threatens the loss of their distinctive customary culture- Ailan Kastom, which entails a spiritual connection with their land and the practice of marine hunting and fishing.

Context:
In another, separate climate claim, a group of eight Torres Strait islanders took a Communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2019, alleging that Australia had violated the human rights of low-lying islanders because of its failure to take climate action. On 21 July 2022, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views in this case, known as the Billy and Others v. Australia case.

Petitioners:
This case was brought by two First Nations leaders on behalf of the remote Torres Strait islands of Boigu and Saibai. They brought the case on their own behalf and “on behalf of all persons who at any time during the period from about 1985 and continuing, are of Torres Strait Islander descent and suffered loss and damage as a result of the conduct of the Respondent”.

Arguments made:
While their claim is essentially based on the Torres Strait Islanders native title rights under the Native Title Act 1993, the plaintiffs also drew upon a wider body of norms regarding the Torres Strait Islanders as well as the environment in and around the Torres Strait Islands, emanating from international law, domestic law and policy commitments.  

Based on scientific evidence, the plaintiffs argued that climate change is already threatening their native title rights and distinctive customary culture. They alleged that, due to the progression of climate change and the increasing storms and rising sea levels that result from this, they face an increasing threat of floods and of rising salt concentrations in their soil. Some islands, they argue, could become uninhabitable if the global temperature rises to levels more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. One of the plaintiffs noted that that his people have lived on the islands in question for over 65,000 years.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Australian government owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders. It must, in other words, take reasonable measures to protect them, their environment, their culture and their traditional way of life from the harms caused by climate change. Because current climate action and targets are not consistent with the best available climate science, they argue, they argued that this duty of care has been breached. They invoked the Torres Strait Treaty, which requires the Australian government to protect and preserve the marine environment in the region.

Relief sought:
The plaintiffs sought declarations that Australia owes a duty of care to the Torres Strait Islanders which requires reasonable protective measures aimed at the Islanders, their traditional way of life and the marine environment; and that Australia has breached this duty. They further requested the court to order an injunction requiring Australia to implement both climate adaptation and mitigation measures that are consistent with best available science and the payment of compensation for loss and damage.

The plaintiffs sought both mitigation and adaptation measures and relied on the duty of care recognized in the Sharma case.

Fact-finding:
In 2023, representatives of the Federal Court traveled to the Torres Strait to collect evidence from members of the community.

A hearing of expert evidence was held in this case on the premises of the Federal Court in Melbourne starting in late October 2023.  

Ruling of 15 July 2025:
On 15 July 2025, the Federal Court of Australia found that there had been no negligence in this case. In (Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796), the court rejected both of the prima facie negligence and their alternative duty of care claims brought by the Torres Strait Islanders, represented by Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai. The Court found that the applicants failed to prove any of the essential elements of their case: duty, breach, causation, damages. The court orders the parties to confer and within six weeks of the judgment to provide agreed draft orders giving effect to the judgment or in the case of no agreement, competing draft orders and a note as to whether an oral hearing is requested to resolve outstanding issues.

Full text of the petition:
All documents related to the proceedings can be found on the Federal Court of Australia’s website (click here).

Citation:
Pabai v. Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796.

Last updated:
12 September 2025.

Categories
2021 Domestic court Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Norway Right to culture

Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte et al.

Summary:
In this judgment of 11 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway found that the construction of two wind power plants on the Fosen peninsula interfered with the rights of reindeer herders to enjoy their own culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Supreme Court unanimously found that there had been an interference with this right, and accordingly invalidated the wind power licence and the expropriation decision.

Facts of the case:
In 2010, two wind power plants (the Roan and Storheia plants) received a license from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. These plants are located within the Fosen grazing district, where the Sør-Fosen sijte and Nord-Fosen siida keep their reindeer. In 2013, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy rejected their claim that the construction of the wind power plants interfered with their right to cultural enjoyment. Construction on the plants commenced while the issue was pending before the courts, and the two plants – which are part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe — were ready to become operational in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Merits:
The main issue at stake before the Supreme Court was whether the development interfered with the reindeer herders’ rights under Article 27 ICCPR. That provision enshrines the right of persons belonging to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority to enjoy their own culture, in community with the other members of their group. It was undisputed before the Supreme Court that reindeer husbandry is a protected cultural practice. The Supreme Court relied on the Court of Appeal’s finding that the winter pastures near Storheia and Roan had in practice been lost to reindeer husbandry, and that the wind power plants in question are a threat to the reindeer industry’s existence on Fosen peninsula absent remedial measures.    

The Supreme Court, relying on the work of the UN Human Rights Committee, held that the total effect of the development in question determines whether a violation of the ICCPR right has taken place. Although there is no room for a proportionality assessment, a balance must be struck if the rights under Article 27 ICCPR conflict with other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court established that the right to a healthy environment might constitute such a conflicting right.

The Supreme Court found that the herders’ cultural rights would face significant adverse effects and be violated if satisfactory remedial measures were not implemented. The Supreme Court agreed that a “green shift” and increased renewable energy production are important, but found that there were alternatives that were less intrusive for the reindeer herders less, so that there was no collision between environmental interests and the reindeers’ right to cultural enjoyment in this case.   

Remedial awards:
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal had previously stipulated sizeable compensation for the winter feeding of fenced-in reindeer, and on this basis it had found no violation of the right to cultural enjoyment. In the Supreme Court’s view, such a solution was too uncertain to be a determining factor in whether Article 27 ICCPR had been violated. In any event, the courts could not rely on such a measure as a part of the reindeer herders’ duty to adapt.  

Separate opinions:
N/A

Implementation:
N/A

Date of judgment:
11 October 2021

Links:
A summary of the judgment (in English) is available here.

The full text of the judgment (in Norwegian) is available here. An English translation is available here.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Norway, Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte, HR-2021-1975-S, Judgment of 11 October 2021.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Extreme poverty Gender / women-led Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to subsistence/food Right to water Self-determination The Philippines Vulnerability

Greenpeace Southeast Asia and others v. the Carbon Majors

Summary:
This case was brought before the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights (CHR) by 12 organisations and 20 individuals, as well as over a thousand Filipino citizens who expressed their support for the case through a petition, against the so-called ‘carbon majors’, i.e. high-emitting multinational and state-owned producers of natural gas, crude oil, coal and cement, including BP, Shell and Chevron. The applicants based their case on research indicating that these ‘carbon majors’ are responsible for a large percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions. Citing the Philippines’ high degree of vulnerability to the effects of climate change, the applicants alleged violations of the rights to life, health, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and self-determination. They also specifically invoked the rights of vulnerable groups, peoples and communities, including women, children, people living with disabilities, those living in extreme poverty, indigenous peoples, and displaced persons. They invoked also the right to development, labor rights, and the right to ‘a balanced and healthful ecology’. This petition was brought after a number particularly destructive typhoons that affected the Philippines, including Typhoon Haiyan.

As a result of the petition, the CHR began a dialogical and consultative process, called the National Inquiry on Climate Change (NICC). This process aims to determine the impact of climate change on the human rights of the Filipino people, as well as determining whether the Carbon Majors are responsible for climate change.

On 6 May 2022, the Human Rights Commission released the findings of its inquiry.

Responsible instance:
The case was brought before the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights, which is an independent National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, established on 5 May 1987 by Executive Order No. 163.

Date filed:
22 September 2015

Procedural steps in the case:
On 10 December 2015, the Commission announced during the Paris Climate Change Conference that it would take cognizance of the case.

On 21 July 2016, the Commission enjoined the respondent Carbon Majors to file their comments or answers to the petition within forty-five days. Out of the 47 respondents summoned, 15 submitted a response. Thirteen amicus curiae briefs were received. The applicants filed a reply, to which seven of the carbon majors filed a rejoinder.

Beginning July and November 2017, the Commission conducted community visits and dialogues to select climate impacted areas.

On 11 December 2017, the parties held a first preliminary conference. The Commission used this opportunity to deny the respondents’ jurisdictional objections to the case. It asserted its authority to investigate the case and hold public hearings in 2018 in Manila, New York, and London.

In 2018, the Commission held six public hearings in the case.

Outcome of the NICC:
On 6 May 2022, the Human Rights Commission released the findings of its inquiry. In his introductory note, Commissioner Roberto Eugenio T. Cadiz outlined the lengths taken by the Commission to engage with the “carbon majors” over this case, and noted that corporate actors, and not just States, have an obligation to respect and uphold human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). He also noted the unprecedented nature of the claim, and the Commission’s own lack of resources in dealing with it. And he rejected the argument by the “carbon majors” that the Commission did not have territorial or subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the case, noting the interrelated nature of all human rights and the impact on the people of the Philippines.

In its report, the Commission began by reviewing the best available scientific knowledge on climate change. It set out, “as established by peer-reviewed science, that climate change is real and happening on a global scale”, and that it is anthropogenic, i.e. caused by human activity. It then set out that climate change is a human rights issue, noting its adverse impacts on human rights both internationally and in the Philippines. It focused particularly on impacts concerning the right to life, the right to health, the right to food security, the right to water and sanitation, the right to livelihood, the right to adequate housing, the right to the preservation of culture, the right to self-determination and to development, and the right to equality and non-discrimination, focusing on the rights of women, children, indigenous peoples, older persons, people living in poverty, LGBTQIA+ rights. It also noted the impacts on the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment and on the rights of future generations and intergenerational equity.

After considering the duties of States to protect human rights, as the primary duty-bearers of human rights law, the Commission found that these rights also include extraterritorial obligations, and that while a balance between sovereignty and human rights must be sought, “States’ duty to protect is not confined to territorial jurisdiction”. It relied on international environmental law to identify the concrete procedural and substantive obligations on States in the context of climate change, and their obligation to protect vulnerable sectors against discrimination.

The Commission considered that the refusal of governments to engage in meaningful mitigation action regarding climate change constitutes a human rights violation. It held that “[t]he pursuit of the State obligation to mitigate climate change cannot just be framed as aspirational, where the standard of fulfillment is vague and the timeline is uncertain. Concrete metrics must be set against which States may be held accountable. Failing this, States enable the human rights of their citizens to be harmed, which equates to a violation of their duty to protect human rights” (p. 87). The absence of meaningful action to address global warming, it held, suffices in this regard; these obligations of States include an obligation to regulate corporate activities, and to establish a policy environment that discourages reliance on fossil fuels.

The Commission then turned to business responsibilities, noting that “a State’s failure to perform [its duty to enact and enforce appropriate laws to ensure that corporate actors respect human rights] does not render business enterprises free from the responsibility of respecting human rights.” Referring to the UNGP framework and the UN Global Compact as well as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations, it applied these standards to the context of climate change. It found that:

  • The anthropogenic contributions of the “carbon majors” to climate change is quantifiable and substantial;
  • The “carbon majors” had early awareness, notice or knowledge of their products’ adverse impacts on the environment and climate systems;
  • The “carbon majors” engaged in willful obfuscation or obstruction to prevent meaningful climate action;
  • The “carbon majors” have the corporate responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence and provide remediation, including through every entity in their value chain;
  • And the UNGPs may be relied on under the law of the Philippines.

It went on to issue a number of recommendations. Concerning States, it called for climate justice, including a pooling of resources and sharing of skills, and urged governments to:

  • Undertake to discourage dependence on fossil fuels, including by phasing out all coal power fossil fuel subsidies and other incentives;
  • To collaborate on innovative climate action and guarantee the enjoyment by all of the benefits of science and technology;
  • To cooperate towards the creation of a legally binding instrument to strengthen the implementation of the UNGPs, and provide redress to victims of corporate human rights impacts;
  • To concretize the responsibilities of corporate actors in the climate context;
  • To discourage anthropogenic contributions to climate change and compensate victims;
  • To ensure access to adaptation measures by all, as well as equality and non-discrimination in climate adaptation and mitigation measures;
  • And to ensure a just transition towards an environmentally sustainable economy;
  • As well as to fulfil climate finance commitments and devise new mechanisms for loss and damage from climate change-related events;
  • To adequately support and protect environmental defenders and climate activists;
  • To promote climate change awareness and education;
  • To include military operations and supply chains in carbon accounting;
  • And to strengthen shared efforts to conserve and restore forests and other terrestrial ecosystems.

The Commission also formulated concrete recommendations for the “carbon majors” themselves, urging them to:

  • Publicly disclose their due diligence and climate and human rights impact assessment results, and the measures taken in response thereto;
  • Desist from all activities that undermine the findings of climate science, including “climate denial propaganda” and lobbying activities;
  • Cease further exploration of new oil fields, keep fossil fuel reserves in the ground, and lead the just transition to clean energy;
  • Contribute to a green climate fund for the implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures;
  • And continually engage with experts, CSOs, and other stakeholders to assess and improve the corporate climate response through “a new chapter of cooperation towards a united front for climate action”.

Speaking directly to financial institutions and investors, the Commission noted their ability to “steer companies and industries towards a sustainable path by aligning lending and investment portfolios with targets set by science”. It considered that their role in financing sectors and projects that generate greenhouse gas emissions make them “similarly accountable for global warming”. Accordingly, they were urged to:

  • Refrain from financing fossil fuel related projects and instead direct capital towards green projects; and
  • Exert social, political and economic pressure on the fossil fuel industry to transition to clean energy by divesting financial instruments related to fossil fuels.

The Commission concluded by noting the role of UN institutions, NHRIs, and courts — reviewing examples of climate litigation such as the Urgenda or Leghari cases, noting that “even when courts do not rule in favor of the claimants, they still contribute to meaningful climate response through their elucidation of the law and the rights and obligations of the parties”. Similarly, NGOs, CSOs, the legal profession and individuals are recommended to champion human rights and continue engaging in strategic litigation to strengthen business and human rights norms, change policy, increase governments’ ambitions, and create precedents.

The Commission furthermore addressed the Philippines’ own lackluster record of climate action, making concrete recommendations to the government to, among other things, formulate a national action plan on business and human rights, declare a climate and environmental alert, and revisit its NDC under the Paris Agreement as well as implement coal moratoriums, transition to low-carbon transportation systems, implementing REDD+ measures and data building and reporting mechanisms, and create legislative change. It also recommended to the domestic judiciary to create rules of evidence for attributing climate change impacts and assessing damages, and take note of the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

Full text of the report:
The report of 6 May 2022 is available for download below.

CHRP-NICC-Report-2022Download

Suggested citation:
Philippines Human Rights Commission, In Re: National Inquiry on the Impact of Climate Change on the Human Rights of the Filipino People and the Responsibility therefor, if any, of the ‘Carbon Majors’, case nr. CHR-NI-2016-0001, Report of 6 May 2022.

Further information:
The full text of the petition is available here.

A blogpost on the importance of the report by Annalisa Savaresi and Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh is available on the GNHRE blog.

For additional resources provided by the Commission, such as transcripts of hearings and evidence submitted, click here.

Categories
2020 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Standing/admissibility United States of America

Juliana et al. v. USA et al.

Summary:
On 12 August 2015, the Juliana v. the United States case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The 21 youth plaintiffs in this case, who were represented by the NGO “Our Children’s Trust”, asserted that the government had violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property through its climate change-causing actions. Among other things, they argued that they had suffered psychological harms, damage to property, impairment to their recreational interests, and that their medical conditions had been exacerbated by the effects of climate change. They sought declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to phase out fossil fuels. Moreover, they stated that the government had failed to protect essential public trust resources by encouraging and permitting the combustion of fossil fuels. After extensive proceedings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the case in 2024, and the US Supreme Court refused to grant certoriari in March 2025, effectively ending the case.

The Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision:
The Government filed a large number of motions to stay or deny these procedings. However, U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken declined to dismiss the lawsuit. She ruled that access to a clean environment constitutes a fundamental right. Judge Aiken’s judgment was reversed by a Ninth Circuit Panel on 17 January 2020 due to the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the gravity of the evidence on the plaintiffs’s injuries from climate change. The panel of judges also recognized the existence of harms to the applicants, and the plausibility of arguing that these harms had been caused by climate change. Nevertheless, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ requested remedies should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches and not by the courts. As a result, they “[r]eluctantly” held that “such relief is beyond [their] constitutional power.”

One of the three judges affirmed the plaintiff’s constitutional climate rights in a dissent, arguing that the case sought to enforce the US Constitution’s most basic principle: “that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.” Accordingly, she held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the government’s conduct, and had presented sufficient evidence to press their constitutional rights claims at trial.

Further proceedings:
On 9 March 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint and adjust the remedy sought in the case. After settlement talks ended without resolution in November 2021, and Judge Aiken granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in June 2023. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s failure to address climate change violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments and the Public Trust Doctrine. The amended complaint requested the court to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out policies, practices that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms the plaintiffs.

In December 2023, the court partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing claims related to the right to a climate system capable of sustaining life under the Due Process Clause and the Public Trust Doctrine to proceed. However, in February 2024, the government filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, which was granted by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2024. This order required the district court to dismiss the case and preclude any further amendments. Subsequently, the district court dismissed the case.

These were complex proceedings, with several intermediate filings and actions. However, on 24 March 2025, the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certoriari. The plaintiffs had sought review of the order of the Ninth Circuit of May 2024, which granted the government’s request for a writ of mandamus and ordered the district court to dismiss the case. At the time of writing, this seems to have effectively ended the case.

Proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
On 23 September 2025, the NGO Our Children’s Trust announced that it had filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging climate-related violations of human rights by the government of the United States of America on behalf of some of the plaintiffs in the present case. A separate database entry on those proceedings can be found here.

Further reading:
The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s order on interlocutory appeal is available here.

Documents on the proceedings before the Supreme Court can be found here.

For scholarly comment on this case, see among others:

  • Melissa Powers, ‘Juliana v United States: The next frontier in US climate mitigation?’ 27 RECIEL 199 (2018).
  • William Montgomery, ‘Juliana v. United States: The Ninth Circuit’s Opening Salvo for a New Era of Climate Litigation’, 34 Tul. Env’t L.J. 341 (2021).
  • Nathanial Levy, ‘Juliana and the Political Generativity of Climate Litigation’, 43 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 479 (2019).
  • Chloe N. Kempf, ‘Why Did So Many Do So Little? Movement Building and Climate Change Litigation in the Time of Juliana v. United States‘, 99 Tex. L. Rev. 1005 (2020-2021).

Suggested citation:
Juliana and Others v. the United States and Others, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020).

Last updated:
15 January 2026.

Categories
Canada Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Right to culture Right to health Right to property Right to subsistence/food

Arctic Athabaskan Council v. Canada

Summary:
This case, brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by Athabaskan people living in Canada, concerned alleged rights violations relating to Arctic warming and melting caused by Canadian black carbon emissions. The case alleged that Canada, by failing to regulate black carbon emissions, had violated various human rights of the Athabaskan people, including their rights to health, subsistence, property, and culture.

The complaint:
The applicants in this case allege that Canada’s emissions of black carbon, which is a component of sooty fine-particle pollution and stems largely from diesel emissions and the burning of biomass, is particularly harmful to their rights and way of life because it is emitted in or near the Arctic.

The applicants submit that the warming effect of black carbon on the global climate is second only to carbon dioxide. In the Arctic, black carbon warms in two ways: it absorbs sunlight in the air, and it reduces the reflectivity of ice and snow-covered surfaces, accelerating their rate of melting.

In particular, the applicants cite their right to culture, particularly their ability to transmit their cultural knowledge to future generations, because “Arctic warming and melting has made the weather, the hunt, and the behaviors and occurrence of fish and wildlife so erratic that elders no longer feel confident in teaching younger people traditional ways.”

The also argue that warming and melting has affected the integrity of the land, compromising their right to property. This includes floods, forest fires, melting permafrost, erosion-related harms and landslides, as well as the destruction of cultural and historic sites and increased difficulty in accessing resources. The Athabaskans also invoke their right to means of subsistence, citing difficulties in accessing traditional food sources and adverse effects on biodiversity. Lastly, they cite their right to health, arguing that the loss of traditional foods has adversely affected the Athabaskan way of life. Melting permafrost is affecting water quality, and the loss of traditional food sources is forcing the people to rely on purchased food, leading to increases in the prevalence of chronic diseases.

Before the Commission, the applicants allege that the Canadian state’s acts and omissions represent an ongoing violation of their human rights, and that there are no domestic remedies suitable for addressing these violations. They argue that Canada has failed to take action to reduce black carbon emissions, and that such action could substantially remedy the Arctic warming and melting that are causing the violations at stake. They accordingly request the Commission to investigate and confirm the alleged harms; set forth the facts and applicable law, declaring a violation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and recommend steps to limit black carbon emissions and protect Arctic Athabaskan culture and resources from Arctic warming and melting.

Forum:
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

Date filed:
23 April 2013

Status of case:
Pending

Suggested citation:
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Arctic Athabaskan Peoples v. Canada, petition submitted on 23 April 2013, case pending.

Further information:
For more on this petition, see

The full text of the petition has been made available here by EarthJustice here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/AAC_PETITION_13-04-23a.pdf

For a summary of the petition, provided by EarthJustice, click here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/legal_docs/summary-of-inuit-petition-to-inter-american-council-on-human-rights.pdf

Further reading:
Agnieszka Szpak, ‘Arctic Athabaskan Council’s Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Climate Change—Business as Usual or a Breakthrough?’ 162 Climatic Change (2020) 1575–1593.

Categories
2006 Biodiversity Emissions reductions/mitigation Extraterritorial obligations Freedom of movement Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Private and family life Right to culture Right to health Right to property Right to subsistence/food United States of America

Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al. v. the United States of America

Summary:
Filed in 2005 by members of the Inuit people living in Canada, this application concerned the climate change-related responsibility of the United States of America. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights refused to examine the case on the grounds that the information provided was insufficient.

More information on the petition:
In this petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman and Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference living in Canada, sought relief from human rights violations related to climate change caused by the acts and omissions of the United States. Ms. Watt-Cloutier, on behalf of herself, 62 other individuals, and all of the Inuit of the arctic regions of the United States of America and Canada, sought relief against the effects of climate change, which — it was argued — have the potential to affect every aspect of the life of the Inuit people, including the quality of the permafrost, land and water, biodiversity and food sources, and cultural rights. The petitioners relied on the United States’ obligations under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other instruments that shape these obligations under the Declaration, including the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This case was extraterritorially framed: it was brought by Inuit people living in Canada, but against the United States of America for its climate change-related human rights impacts. The petitioners argued that the acts and omissions by the United States had violated the Inuit’s rights to the benefits of culture, to property, to the preservation of health, life, physical integrity, security, and a means of subsistence, and to residence, movement, and inviolability of the home under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international instruments.

Outcome:
On 16 November 2006, the Commission refused to consider the petition because it considered that it had provided insufficient information. Specifically, it found that the petition did not “enable us [the Commission] to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration”.

The Commission held a hearing in 2007 concerning the case, however it did not revisit its decision not to examine the complaints made.

Forum:
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

Date filed:
7 December 2005

Suggested citation:
IACHR, Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al. v. USA, petition rejected on 7 December 2005

Full text of the petition:
The text of the petition is available at climatecasechart.com. Click here to access it.

The video of the 2007 hearing is available here.

Further information:
For more on this petition, see:

Agnieszka Szpak, ‘Arctic Athabaskan Council’s petition to the Inter-American Commission on human rights and climate change—business as usual or a breakthrough?’ 162 Climatic Change (2020) 1575–1593.

Categories
Access to a remedy Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Nicaragua Right to property

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua

Summary:
The Awas Tingni community, an indigenous community of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, had no real property title deed to its ancestral lands. The community contested a concession to a corporation to carry out road construction work and logging exploitation in the forest where the community was located. The community requested that no further steps be taken to grant the concession without the consent of the community. Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the community argued that the State did not ensure access to an effective remedy, nor obtain the community’s consent before granting the concession on the community’s land. Moreover, it contended that the state had not demarcated the communal lands of the Community.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that the Nicaraguan State had violated the American Convention on Human Rights, specifically the right to judicial protection under Art. 25 in connection with Art. 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, as well as the right to property under Art. 21 in connection with Art. 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.

Date of judgment:
31 August 2001

Rights invoked:
Art. 1 (obligation to Respect Rights), Art. 2 (domestic Legal Effects), Art. 21 (right to property) and Art. 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights

Merits:
Regarding art. 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Court held that the State had not adopted adequate domestic measures for delimination, demarcation and titling of the community’s land. Moreover, the State had failed to process the remedy filed by the community within a reasonable time. Therefore the Court held that Nicaragua had violated art. 25. The Court also ruled that the State had not effectively delimited and demarcated the limit of the territory regarding which the community had property rights. As a consequence, the community did not know with certainty how far their property extended geographically. The Court determined that Nicaragua had violated art. 21 of the Convention (right to property).

Remedies:
The State was required to adopt, in its domestic law, pursuant to art. 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, legislative, administrative and any other measures necessary to create an effective mechanism for delimination, demarcation and titling of the property of indigenous communities. Moreover the State was requires to carry out the delimination, demarcation and the titling of the corresponding lands of the members of the community. The Court also noted that its judgment constituted a form of reparation. In addition, the State was required to invest, as a form of reparation for immaterial damages, in works or services of collective interests to the benefit of the community, as well as being required to pay the community 30’000 dollars for costs and expenses regarding the proceedings.

Separate opinions:
See the dissenting opinion of Judge Montiel Argüello regarding the violation of Arts. 21 and 25.

Suggested case citation:
IACtHR, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment of 31 August 2001