Category: Paris Agreement

Categories
Argentina Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Uncategorized

Hahn et al. v APR Energy S.R.L.

Summary:

The legal action centred on the construction and operation of Matheu II and Matheu III, thermoelectric power plants in Pilar, Argentina. The plaintiffs, comprising a coalition of individuals and non-governmental organizations, argued that these projects lacked the necessary environmental assessments and contended that relying on fossil fuels for power generation ran contrary to international agreements such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others. Initially, the Federal Court of Campana granted precautionary measures to halt construction, citing environmental and procedural concerns, safeguarding collective interests, and mitigating potential harm. However, in December 2022, they allowed limited operation of Matheu III, considering global energy challenges. In June 2023, the court denied an extension for Matheu III, citing noise pollution concerns raised by the Municipality of Pilar and emphasizing the need to balance energy production with local environmental well-being.

Claim:

The legal action was undertaken with the primary objective of preventing the construction and operation of the thermoelectric power stations Matheu II and Matheu III. The plaintiffs asserted that these plants had initiated construction without fulfilling the proper environmental assessment. Furthermore, they argued that the use of fossil fuels in power generation was in violation of international human rights treaties, climate agreements, and domestic regulations. They asserted that the operation of these power plants posed a significant threat to the environment, public health, and the fundamental human right to enjoy a healthy and balanced environment.

Decision:

Initially, the Federal Court of Campana ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by issuing precautionary measures that temporarily halted the construction and operation of the power plants. These measures were based on environmental and procedural considerations, as well as protecting collective interests and preventing potential harm, as stipulated in domestic law. However, the court’s decisions did not explicitly address the issue of climate impact.

Subsequently, Araucaria, one of the plant operators, secured a partial adjustment to the precautionary measures in December 2022. This modification permitted the temporary and limited operation of Matheu III, partially due to concerns stemming from the global energy crisis and the resultant surge in energy prices, driven in part by geopolitical events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

However, in June 2023, the Federal Court of Campana chose not to extend the authorization for the partial operation of Matheu III. The decision was prompted by concerns raised by the Municipality of Pilar regarding noise pollution. This ruling reflects the court’s consideration of local environmental and public health concerns, highlighting the importance of balancing energy production with environmental and societal well-being.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Federal Court of Campana.

Suggested citation:

Hahn et al. v. APR Energy S.R.L (Juvevir Asociación Civil v. APR Energy and Araucaria Energy) (Federal Court of Campagna, Argentina), Case No: FSM 116712/2017

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Romania

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government

Summary:

In January 2023, Declic (a prominent Romanian NGO) alongside a number of individuals initiated Romania’s first-ever climate lawsuit against the government, specifically targeting Prime Minister Nicoale Ciucă and the Ministers of Environment and Energy. The lawsuit alleges that the government has failed to implement adequate measures to address and mitigate the foreseeable risks associated with the climate crisis, violating its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking fines for each day of government inaction and demanding a court order mandating immediate and comprehensive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, achieve climate neutrality by 2050, and increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 45% while improving energy efficiency by 13% by 2030.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that the government is in breach of its duty of care by applying insufficient greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, falling well below the EU-wide reduction goal of 55% below 1990 levels. They argue that the absence of annual carbon budgets and mechanisms for monitoring and reporting progress towards climate goals hinders the meaningful assessment of the government’s measures to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the lawsuit questions whether the measures taken by the government are sufficient to prevent climate change from becoming dangerous to humanity and the environment, considering the discretionary power of the government. The plaintiffs also challenge whether the government’s climate mitigation and adaptation measures meet objective standards and pass reasonableness tests set by international bodies like the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Finally, the court is called upon to determine whether the government’s measures are compatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, privacy, property, health, and a healthy and ecologic environment.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Cluj Court of Appeal of Romania.

Suggested citation:

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government (Cluj Court of Appeal, Romania, filed January 2023).

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Russian Federation

Ecodefense and Others v. Russia

Summary:
In 2022, the NGOs Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group, together with a group of individual plaintiffs representing Fridays for Future and the Sami and Itelmen indigenous people, brought an administrative action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seeking to declare the Russian Federation’s climate legislation invalid. They argue that the current measures are not in line with the temperature targets under the Paris Agreement, noting that Russia is currently the fourth biggest global carbon emitter. They submit that Russia is accordingly in violation of its own constitution, as well as of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022.

Key arguments:
The plaintiffs invoke a number of human and constitutional rights, arguing that their right to life, to health care, to a healthy environment (which is recognized by the Russian Constitution), to the protection of land and other natural resources as the basis of the life and activities of indigenous peoples, and to the protection of young people and future generations (based on the principle of equality). They also invoke the prohibition of torture and the right to home, private life and property as well as the prohibition of discrimination and the right to an adequate standard of living.

On this basis, the plaintiffs argue that the existing Russian climate policy measures are not only incompatible with domestic law, but that they also violate Russia’s international legal obligations under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the ECHR. The plaintiffs also contest the emphasis on carbon absorption (and not GHG emissions reductions) in the current Russian strategy, which they argue does not suffice to do Russia’s “fair share” to keep global warming below the Paris Agreement’s targets of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.

Status:
Pending

Further information:
A summary of the plaintiff’s submissions in this case is available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Ecodefense and Others v. Russia, pending case, submitted on 11 September 2022.

Last updated:
4 August 2023

Categories
2023 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Margin of appreciation Paris Agreement Separation of powers Spain Standing/admissibility Victim status

Greenpeace Spain et al. v. Spain

Summary:
In 2020, three environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción and Oxfam Intermón) challenged the level of ambition of the Spanish government’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets in what has been described as the first-ever Spanish climate case. At the material time, the Spanish ambition was to reduce emissions by 23% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels); the three NGOs argued that this target should have been more ambitious, at 55%. In the absence of any response to the challenge by the Government, in September 2020, the three NGOs filed an administrative appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court. In 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, with the plaintiffs announcing their intention to seize the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Claims made:
These proceedings challenged delays in the adoption of the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (‘Plan Nacional Integrado de Energía y Clima’ or PNIEC), as required under European Union law (by 31 December 2019, see EU Regulation 2018/1999), as well as its low level of amibition. The Spanish government missed this deadline, only transmitting its PNIEC to the European Commission on 31 March 2020. In their pleadings, the applicants argued that the Spanish state must take more ambitious measures in order to guarantee respect for human and environmental rights for present and future generations.

Ruling:
On 24 July 2023, the case was decided by the Spanish Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal in full. The Court noted the formal nature of the complaints about delays in the adoption of the plan, and emphasized the short time frame for the adoption of the PNIEC imposed by EU law, as well as the complexity of decision-making within multi-level governance frameworks, which meant that the plan could not be considered void as a whole.

As concerns the level of amibition of the plan, the Supreme Court noted the need to decide this case under Spanish law, and not the case-law from other jurisdictions that had been cited by the applicants; it also noted the need to respect the concrete legal obligations that Spain had assumed under the Paris Agreement, as well as the need to balance climate action with the interests of a sustainable economy.

The Court held that the State had a wide margin of discretion in this context, and that the case was asking it to exceed its role by not only declareing an acceptable emissions target, but accordingly by imposing far-reaching changes to Spain’s economic policy. It noted that while the targets under the Paris Agreement were minimum targets (“at least”), as were those under EU law, the Spanish legislator had chosen to adhere to these minima, and not to exceed them.

On the fundamental rights claim, the Court referred to EU law on locus standi, especially the Armando Carvalho case. It emphasized the need to prevent voiding the criterion of direct and individual concern. Accordingly, it found that the alleged infringement of human rights by the PNIEC was not sufficient in itself to render these claims admissible. The decision to adhere to the minima set out under EU law could not be considered arbitrary, but instead constituted a legitimate exercise of the Spanish government’s constitutional powers.

Further proceedings:
After the ruling was issued, Lorena Ruiz-Huerta, counsel for the plaintiff organizations, announced their intention to take this case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in order to “force the State to protect the human rights that are seriously threatened by climate change”.

Suggested citation:
Spanish Supreme Court, Greenpeace Spain et al. v. Spain, no. 1079/2023, 24 July 2023, ECLI:ES:TS:2023:3556.

Further information:
For the Supreme Court’s ruling (in Spanish), see here.

The applicants’ pleadings (in Spanish) are available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Last updated:
4 August 2023

Categories
2023 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Standing/admissibility Victim status

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al.

Summary:
On 20 March 2023, a first-instance court in Japan heard a civil case concerning the construction and operation of new coal-fired power plants brought by the citizens of Kobe. Two weeks previously, on 9 March 2023, the Japanese Supreme Court refused to hear its first-ever administrative climate case concerning the same set of facts, giving no substantive reasons for doing so. In the civil case, which was filed in 2018, 40 citizens of Kobe brought suit against three corporations involved in the construction and operation of the plants. They argued that these plants would impact themtheir personal rights and right to a peaceful life both through air pollution and through their contribution to the climate change.

As Grace Nishikawa and Masako Ichihara have explained on the Sabin Center’s Climate Law Blog, ‘personal rights’ are established through case-law and frequently enter into play in environmental cases. They protect personal well-being, including the rights to life, bodily integrity, health, and a peaceful life (the last of which the authors compare to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights). The plaintiffs in this case invoked these personal rights, arguing that the coal plants would aggravate climate change, leading to extreme heat and rainfall events that would directly affect them. In their submissions, they made arguments based on international and comparative law, mentioning carbon budgets, the Paris Agreement, the Dutch Urgenda case, and the Glasgow Climate Pact.

In its first-instance judgment, the Kobe District Court accepted that greenhouse emissions, including those from the plant, contribute to climate change and can violate personal rights. However, it found the risk of harm to the individual plaintiffs to be too uncertain, and rejected their claim, noting the difficulty of causally attributing responsibility for damage related to climate change.

Concerning the alleged violation of the right to a peaceful life, which the plaintiffs argued contains a right to a healthy and peaceful life, the Court likewise rejected this claim, for the same reasons, finding that fears about climate change were not concrete enough to constitute human rights violation. The Court also noted that there was no legally recognized right stable climate in Japan.

Concerning the additional air pollution complaint, the Court found that this was not serious enough to constitute a concrete danger to the plaintiffs’ rights. It also did not engage with the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the operation of the coal plants.

Appeal:
Climate Case Chart reports that an appeal in this case was filed on 4 January 2023.

Further reading:
The above draws on the following two key sources:

The original case documents (in Japanese) are available via Climate Case Chart.

Suggested citation:
Kobe District Court, Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al., Judgment of 20 March 2023.

Last updated:
20 July 2023

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Human dignity Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life South Korea

Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea)

Summary:
In October 2021, the South Korean NGO “Climate Crisis Emergency Action” filed a constitutional complaint on behalf of 130 parties concerning the country’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets as set out in the South Korean Basic Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth (the Carbon Growth Act), which was promulgated on 24 September 2021. On 29 August 2024, the Constitutional Court of South Korea issued its judgment in this and three other mitigation cases.

In a draft of the application form available online (in Korean), the applicant organization noted the Korean National Assembly’s statement in support of the 1.5 degree emissions reductions target under the Paris Agreement, and the insufficiency of the domestic mitigation action to meet that target. It submitted that the domestic target is “an arbitrary and irresponsible reduction target set in defiance of the standards agreed upon by the scientific community and the international community.” Noting the State’s “duty to protect the basic rights of its citizens” (in Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution), it submitted that fundamental rights are already being violated and will continue to be violated, and that higher legislative ambition is required.

Claims made (as per the version of the application made available here):
The plaintiffs in this case contested Article 8(1) of the Carbon Growth Act, which stipulates that “the government shall reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by a rate prescribed by Presidential Decree by at least 35 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 by 2030 as the mid- to long-term national greenhouse gas reduction target.” The plaintiffs argued that this goal was arbitrary and irresponsible and that ot ignored climate scientific findings and the standards agreed upon by the international community, and that it is not based on a ‘carbon budget (total greenhouse gas emissions)’ necessary to prevent the climate crisis. Furthermore, they argued that the Carbon Growth Act is based on ‘groundless optimism’ about technology and market-based ‘green growth’ and that it favors corporate interests over constitutional rights protection.

In concreto, the plaintiffs invoked the right to pursue human dignity, value and happiness in Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution, along with the right to live a life worthy of humanity in Article 34, and the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment in Article 35. They also invoked Article 36 of the Constitution concerning the protection of public health and disaster prevention. Citing scientific evidence concerning increasing natural disasters, food and water shortages, security crises and social disasters, they submitted that “the obligation to protect fundamental rights from climate change has been fulfilled only when measures corresponding to the minimum level agreed upon in the international community are taken.”

The applicants explicitly linked their case to the German Neubauer judgment concerning the impact of unambitious climate policy on the rights of future generations, as well as referencing the Dutch Urgenda judgment.

Relevant interim developments:

On 12 June 2023, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) (the present case) and Min-A Park v. South Korea). Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean Constitutional Court found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.

Categories
2023 Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility Vulnerability

Mathur et al. v. HM the Queen in Right of Ontario

Summary:
On 25 November 2019, seven Canadian young people and the NGO Ecojustice brought a case against the State of Ontario, arguing that it had failed to take adequate action to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions and contesting the State’s “dangerously inadequate GHG reduction target” as set out under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018. Under this legislation, Ontario aims to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. To contest the adequacy of this target, and the previous repeal of the more ambitious Climate Change Act (with its target of 45% reductions by 2030), the applicants invoked sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to equal protection under the law). Arguing that they have a serious and genuine interest in this case, which also impacts all Ontario youth and future generations, they noted that climate change will cause heat-related fatalities, harms to human health, increased fire activity and the spread of disease, increased flooding and other extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms and exposure to contaminants, harms to Indigenous peoples, and psychological harms and mental distress.

Claims made:
Noting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the leading role of developed countries under the Paris Agreement, the applicants argued that Ontario’s current emissions reductions target compromises their right to life, liberty and security of the person “in a serious and pervasive manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice”. They furthermore submitted that the target violated the right to liberty of Ontario’s youth and future generations, because it impacted their ability to make choices about their futures. They invoked the principle of “societal preservation” and human dignity, and argued for the recognition of a right to a stable climate system. Concerning the right to equal protection under the law, they argued that youth and future generations are in a uniquely vulnerable situation given their age and exclusion from political participation and the fact that they will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.

Relief sought:
Among other things, the applicants sought the invalidation of the existing emissions reductions targets and the rules for setting such targets, a declaration that it violates unwritten constitutional principles about avoiding harm, a recognition of the right to a stable climate system, and an order that Ontario must set out a science based GHG reduction target consistent with its share of global emissions.

Decision on admissibility:
On 12 November 2020, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario rejected a motion from the government to dismiss the case. The government had invoked the absence of a right to a stable climate from the Charter, the plaintiffs’ alleged lack standing to represent future generations, and the absence of sufficient evidence or a reasonable cause of action.

Hearing:
A hearing in this case was heard from 12-14 September 2022.

2023 Judgment:
On 14 April 2023, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario delivered its judgment in the case. The Court found that, although the policies in question were justiciable given that the applicants had challenged specific state acts and legislation, the applicants had not established a violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In her judgment, Justice Vermette noted that the issue of establishing Ontario’s “fair share” of the remaining carbon budget was not a justiciable issue, and “should be determined in another forum” (para. 109). Justice Vermette did consider it “indisputable that, as a result of climate change, the Applicants and Ontarians in general are experiencing an increased risk of death and an increased risk to the security of the person” (para. 120). However, she disagreed with the applicants’ characterization of the emissions reductions target as “authorizing, incentivizing, facilitating and creating the very level of dangerous GHG that will lead to the catastrophic consequences of climate change for Ontarians”, finding that “the target does not authorize or incentivize GHG” (para. 122).

While the target was not legally meaningless, and justiciable under the Charter, Justice Vermette found (contrary to the arguments of the applicants) that the question at issue was whether the Charter imposed positive obligations. Leaving this question open, albeit acknowledging that “the Applicants make a compelling case that climate change and the existential threat that it poses to human life and security of the person present special circumstances that could justify the imposition of positive obligations under section 7 of the Charter”, Justice Vermette found that any putative deprivation of Charter rights at stake was not contrary to “the principles of fundamental justice”, i.e. neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. This test applies because the relevant right in the Charter, i.e. its Article 7, stipulates that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Concerning the equality claim under Article 15 of the Charter, Justice Vermette found that Ontario’s climate policy did not distinguish based on age, but made a temporal distinction, and that accordingly there was no violation of that provision either.

Proceedings on Appeal:
An appeal by the applicants was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal — the highest court in the state of Ontario — in January 2024. On 17 October 2024, this court unanimously ruled that the case should be referred back to the previous instance, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, for a new hearing, finding that the case raised important issues and that the lower court judge’s analysis was flawed on key points. The Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing in the case before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously found that the previous instance had erred in framing this case as seeking to impose new positive obligations on the State of Ontario (para. 5). Instead, it found that through state law, specifically the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018, the government of Ontario had “voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change”. The ruling also invited the applicants to broaden the scope of their case by incorporating arguments made by amicus curiae and to adduce further evidence.

In doing so, the Court found that:

[6]          The interveners raised relevant, important issues that were not determined by the application judge, either because they were not raised before her or did not affect her analysis, or because she declined to address them since they were not pleaded in the notice of application. They included whether the Target breached the Charter rights of Indigenous peoples in Ontario and their s. 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982; the integration of the public trust doctrine; the application of international law, including international environmental law, in the interpretation of Charter rights; the application of the best interests of the child principle; and the recognition and impact of certain unwritten constitutional principles, including societal preservation and ecological sustainability.

Further reading:

  • The original application is available in full from Climate Case Chart, as is the admissibility order.
  • The 2023 judgment in the case is available here.
  • A comment on the judgment in this case, as well as its context, is available from Christie A. MacLeod, Annafaye Dunbar, and Rosemarie Sarrazin (Miller Thomson) here.
  • The 2024 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal can be found here.

Suggested citation:
Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, Mathur v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316, 14 April 2023.

Ontario Court of Appeal, Mathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762, 17 October 2024.

Last updated:
13 November 2024.

Categories
Adaptation Biodiversity Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Climate-induced displacement Deforestation Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Gender / women-led Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Loss & damage Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Rights of nature Vulnerability

Climate Advisory Opinion of the IACtHR (OC 32/2025)

Summary:
On 3 July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change, at the request of the governments of Chile and Colombia.

Advisory opinion request:
On 9 January 2023, Colombia and Chile jointly filed a request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights to the IACtHR. The two governments requested clarification of the scope of States’ obligations, both in their individual and collective dimensions, in responding to the climate emergency within the framework of international human rights law, taking into account the different effects that climate change has on people in different regions and on different population groups, nature and human survival. The governments asked the Court to answer a series of questions grouped into six thematic areas, namely on:

A. The scope of States’ obligations to protect and prevent, including regarding their obligations to mitigate, adapt, regulate and monitor, and their response to loss and damage;

B. States’ obligations to protect the right to life given the existing climate science, and taking into account the right of access to information and transparency of information, including under the Escazú Agreement;

C. States’ obligations with respect to the rights of children and new generations, given especially the vulnerability of children;

D. On the State’s obligations concerning consultative and judicial procedures, taking into account the limited remaining carbon budget;

E. The protective and preventative obligations concerning environmental and land rights defenders, as well as women, indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant communities; and

F. Shared and differentiated obligations and responsibilities in terms of the rights of States, the obligation of cooperation and given the impacts on human mobility (migration and forced displacement of people).

Extended summary of the request:
In their request to the IACtHR, the two governments submitted that they are already dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides and fires. These, they submitted, underscore the need for a response based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation and sustainability, as well as human rights. The two governments noted that climate change is already putting humans and future generations at risk, but that its effects are not being experienced uniformly across the international community. Instead, given their geography, climatic conditions, socioeconomic conditions and infrastructure, they are particularly being felt in the most vulnerable communities, including several countries in the Americas. They emphasized that these effects are not proportionate to these countries’ and communities’ contribution to climate change.

The governments, in their request, emphasized the relevance of the right to a healthy environment, as well as other interrelated substantive and procedural rights (affecting life, human survival and future generations). They reviewed the existing scientific evidence concerning the impacts and progression of climate change from the IPCC, and noted the vulnerability of the Andean region. The two governments referred to the 2017 Advisory Opinion of the IACtHR, which recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous and individual right, and referred to the negative effects of climate change. However, they argued, there is a need to further clarify the human rights impacts of climate change, and corresponding obligations. In this regard, they raised the existence also of collective rights for the protection of nature under international human rights and environmental law, and cited the need to protect fundamental biomes like the Amazon and to understand States’ shared but differentiated responsibilities in a way that copes with loss and damage. The two governments invited the Court to set out clear standards against the background of litigation and related developments.

Consultation procedure:
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR (Art. 73(3)), all interested parties (individuals and organizations) are invited to present a written opinion on the issues covered in the advisory opinion request. The President of the Court has established 18 August 2023 as the deadline for doing so. More information is available here.

Advisory opinion of 3 July 2025:
On 3 July 2025, following an oral hearing, the IACtHR issued its advisory opinion in these proceedings (in Spanish, with the text in English to follow). In a 234-page opinion, the Court addressed the questions raised by the governments of Chile and Colombia in their request.

The advisory opinion covers a wide range of relevant issues and obligations, and provides in-depth clarifications of the legal issues raised. It covers, in short:

  • The procedure, competence of the Court and admissibility of the request, as well as a number of other preliminary considerations, including about the (scientific and other) sources used by the Court and the scope of the opinion.
  • The facts of the climate emergency, including its causes, differential contributions of different actors, and its impacts on natural systems, humans, vulnerable territories and ecosystems, as well as the need for urgent action, the possibilities and need for mitigation, the need for adaptation, and the seriousness of climate impacts.
  • The complexity of required responses, including discussions of resilience and sustainable development as a vehicle for protection of both human rights and the environment.
  • The international legal framework around climate change, applicable norms and frameworks, including international investment law, human rights, international environmental law and climate change treaties. The Court also reviewed the case-law of other adjudicators in the context of climate change.
  • The obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency, including the scope of human rights obligations to respect rights, protect rights (including a reinforced due diligence obligation), and the obligation to take measures to ensure progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. This includes discussion of various substantive rights, including particularly the right to a healthy environment but also the rights to life, physical integrity, health, private and family life, property and home, freedom of movement and residence, water and food, work and social security, culture and education. The advisory opinion also includes consideration of procedural rights and the link between these rights and democracy, the right to science and recognition of local knowledge, the right of access to information (and combatting disinformation), the right to political participation and access to justice as well as protection of environmental defenders and equality and non-discrimination norms. In this latter regard, the opinion considers the differential protection owed to children and youth, to Indigenous and tribal peoples, Afrodescendant communities, peasants and those involved in fisheries. It also considers the differential effect of climate change and the implications for fight against poverty.

Opinion of the Court:
Appended to the Court’s extensive consideration of the relevant issues and obligations is its concrete opinion, which reads as follows (translation from the original Spanish, to be replaced with the English-language translation by the Court once available):

THE COURT DECIDES
Unanimously, that:

It is competent to issue the present Advisory Opinion, in the terms of paragraphs 14 to 23.

AND IS OF THE OPINION
Unanimously, that:

  1. According to the best available science, the current situation constitutes a climate emergency due to the accelerated increase in global temperature, produced by diverse activities of anthropogenic origin, undertaken unequally by the States of the international community, which incrementally affect and seriously threaten humanity and, especially, the most vulnerable people. This climate emergency can only be adequately addressed through urgent and effective actions for mitigation, adaptation and progress towards sustainable development, articulated with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience, in the terms of paragraphs 183 and 205 to 216.

    Unanimously, that:
  2. By virtue of the general obligation to respect rights, States have the obligations indicated in paragraphs 219 to 223.

    Unanimously, that:
  3. Under the general obligation to ensure rights, States have an obligation to act in accordance with a standard of enhanced due diligence to counteract the human causes of climate change and protect people under their jurisdiction from climate impacts, in particular those who are most vulnerable, in the terms of paragraphs 225 to 237.

    By six votes in favor and one against, that:
  4. By virtue of the general obligation to ensure the progressive development of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, States must allocate the maximum available resources to protect persons and groups who, because they are in situations of vulnerability, are exposed to the most severe impacts of climate change, in the terms of paragraphs 238 to 243.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissents.

    Unanimously, that:
  5. By virtue of the general obligation to adopt domestic law provisions, States must integrate into their domestic legal framework the necessary regulations to ensure the respect, guarantee and progressive development of human rights in the context of the climate emergency, in the terms of paragraphs 244 to 246.

    Unanimously, that:
  6. By virtue of the obligation to cooperate, the States are obliged to cooperate in good faith to advance in the respect, guarantee and progressive development of human rights threatened or affected by the climate emergency, in the terms of paragraphs 247 to 265.

    By four votes in favor and three against, that:
  7. The recognition of Nature and its components as subjects of rights constitutes a normative development that makes it possible to reinforce the protection of the integrity and functionality of ecosystems in the long term, providing effective legal tools in the face of the triple planetary crisis and facilitating the prevention of existential damage before it becomes irreversible. This conception represents a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment, and reflects a growing trend at the international level aimed at strengthening the protection of ecological systems against present and future threats, in accordance with paragraphs 279 to 286.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting.

    By four votes in favor and three against, that:
  8. By virtue of the principle of effectiveness, the imperative prohibition of anthropogenic conducts that may irreversibly affect the interdependence and vital balance of the common ecosystem that makes the life of the species possible constitutes a norm of jus cogens, in accordance with paragraphs 287 to 294.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting.

    By a vote of five in favor and two partially against, that:
  9. The right to a healthy climate, understood as a component of the right to a healthy environment, protects in its collective dimension the present and future humanity, as well as Nature, in the terms of paragraphs 298 to 316.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  10. By virtue of the right to a healthy climate, States must protect the global climate system and prevent human rights violations derived from its alteration. Therefore, they must mitigate GHG emissions, which implies (i) adopting regulations on the matter that define a mitigation goal and a mitigation strategy based on human rights, as well as regulating the behavior of companies, in the terms of paragraphs 323 to 351; (ii) adopting mitigation supervision and control measures, in the terms of paragraphs 352 to 357, and (iii) determining the climate impact of projects and activities when appropriate, in the terms of paragraphs 358 to 363.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  11. By virtue of the right to a healthy environment, States must (i) protect nature and its components from the impacts of climate change, and (ii) establish a strategy to move towards sustainable development, in the terms of paragraphs 364 to 376.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  12. By virtue of the rights to life, personal integrity, health, private and family life, property and housing, freedom of residence and movement, water and food, work and social security, culture and education, as well as all other substantive rights threatened by climate impacts, States have an enforceability obligation, States have an immediately enforceable obligation to define and update, as ambitiously as possible, their national adaptation goal and plan, in the terms of paragraphs 384 to 391, as well as the duty to act with enhanced due diligence in compliance with the specific duties set forth in paragraphs 400 to 457.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  13. By virtue of the democratic principle, the States must strengthen the democratic rule of law as an essential framework for the protection of human rights, the effectiveness of public action, and open and inclusive citizen participation, also ensuring the full exercise of procedural rights, in the terms of paragraphs 460 to 469.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  14. By virtue of the human right to science and the recognition of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge, protected by Articles 26 of the Convention and 14.2 of the Protocol of San Salvador, all persons have the right to access the benefits of measures based on the best available science and on the recognition of local, traditional or indigenous knowledge, in the terms of paragraphs 471 to 487.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  15. Under the right of access to information, States have obligations regarding (i) production of climate information, in the terms of paragraphs 501 to 518; (ii) disclosure of information relevant to the protection of human rights in the face of climate change, in the terms of paragraphs 519 to 523, and (iii) to adopt measures against disinformation, in the terms of paragraphs 524 to 527.

    Unanimously, that:
  16. Under the right to political participation, States must guarantee processes that ensure the meaningful participation of people under their jurisdiction in decision-making and policies related to climate change, as well as ensure prior consultation of indigenous and tribal peoples, where appropriate, in the terms of paragraphs 530 to 539.

    By four votes in favor and three partially against, that:
  17. By virtue of the right of access to justice, the States must ensure central aspects regarding (i) provision of sufficient means for the administration of justice in this context, (ii) application of the pro actione principle; (iii) celerity and reasonable time in judicial proceedings; (iv) adequate provisions regarding standing, (v) evidence and (vi) reparation, as well as (vii) application of inter-American standards; in the terms of paragraphs 542 to 560.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  18. By virtue of the right to defend human rights, States have a special duty to protect environmental defenders that translates into specific obligations, among others, to protect them, investigate and, if necessary, punish attacks, threats or intimidations they suffer, and to counteract the “criminalization” of the defense of the environment, in the terms of paragraphs 566 to 567, and 575 to 587.

    Unanimously, that:
  19. States should adopt measures aimed at addressing the way in which the climate emergency exacerbates inequality and has a differentiated impact on people living in multidimensional poverty, in the terms of paragraphs 626 and 627.

    By four votes in favor and three partially against, that:
  20. States have specific obligations in situations of special vulnerability such as those faced by (i) children, and (ii) indigenous peoples, tribes, Afro-descendants, and peasant and fishing communities, (iii) people who suffer differentiated impacts in the context of climate disasters, in the terms of paragraphs 599 to 602, and 604; 606 to 613, and 614 to 618. Likewise, States must adopt measures to protect persons who do not belong to the traditionally protected categories but who are in a situation of vulnerability for dynamic or contextual reasons, in the terms of paragraphs 628 and 629.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg partially dissent.

Full text of the advisory opinion:

The English translation of the full text of the advisory opinion is available below.

seriea_32_en (1)Download

Further information:

  • A summary of the advisory opinion (in Spanish) is available here.
  • A discussion of the advisory opinion by Patricia Tarre Moser and Juan Auz on Estudia Derechos Humanos (in Spanish) is available here.
  • The text of the advisory opinion request is available here (in the official Spanish version as filed with the Court) and it has also been translated to English, French and Portuguese by the Court’s Secretariat.
  • For a comment on the request by Juan Auz and Thalia Viveros-Uehara, see ‘Another Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency? The Added Value of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, EJIL:Talk! Blog, 2 March 2023, available here.
  • For a comment on the request from Maria Antonia Tigre, see ‘A Request for an Advisory Opinion at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Initial Reactions’, Climate Law Blog, 17 February 2023, available here.

Suggested citation:
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights, OC 32/2025, 3 July 2025.

Last updated:
4 July 2025.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life South Korea

Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea

Summary:
On 13 March 2020, nineteen teenagers from across South Korea initiated proceedings against their government (the National Assembly of Korea and the President of Korea), arguing that insufficient emissions reductions efforts were violating their constitutional rights. They alleged that Korean climate legislation (originally Article 42(1)1 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth, and later also Article 8(1) of the domestic Carbon Neutrality Act (the “Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Act” of 2021) was not compatible with their constitutional rights, bringing their case against the National Assembly for enacting the law and the government for implementing an administrative plan based on that law. Their constitutional complaint was combined with three other mitigation cases and decided by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea on 29 August 2024.

The applicants in this case are part of the Korean Youth 4 Climate Action Group, which has led the Korean ‘School Strike for Climate’ movement. They argued that, by not taking action to prevent the threats posed by climate change, the government had violated the right of younger generations to life and the pursuit of happiness (Article 10 of the Constitution), which they argue also enshrines the right to resist against human extinction, along with the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 35(1) of the Constitution). They also contested inter-generational inequalities under the constitutional prohibition of discrimination (Article 11 of the Constitution) and invoked the duty of the State to prevent environmental disasters (Article 34(e) of the Constitution). In doing so, the applicants invoked the fatal risk posed by climate change and the irrevocable damage to be suffered by younger generations. As a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, they argued, Korea has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of climate change by taking stronger emissions reductions action.

Relevant interim developments:
On 30 December 2022, the Korean National Human Rights Commission issued an official statement to the President of Korea regarding climate change and human rights. Citing IPCC reports, UN findings, other instances of climate litigation (such as Urgenda and Neubauer) and the existence of different vulnerabilities, it found that “[a]s the climate crisis has far-reaching impacts on multiple human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and housing, the government should regard protecting and promoting the rights of everyone in the midst of climate crisis as its fundamental obligation and reform related laws and systems to address the climate crisis from a human rights perspective.”

On 12 June 2023, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the constitutional rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Timeline of the case (by Youth 4 Climate Action Korea):

  • 13 March 2020: Youth 4 Climate Action files a constitutional petition
  • 25 March 2020: Notice of referral from the Constitutional Court
  • 28 September 2020: Submission of supplementary opinion on constitutional petition (1)
  • 29 October 2020: Defendants submit presidential opinion
  • 26 January 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (2)
  • 15 April 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (3)
  • 23 July 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (4)
  • 23 September 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (5) on constitutional petition
  • 13 March 2022: Additional constitutional petition filed against the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act
  • 8 June 2022: Additional constitutional petition filed against the Enforcement Decree of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act
  • 31 May 2023: Submission of supplementary opinion (6)
  • 22 August 2023: National Human Rights Commission submits opinion to Constitutional Court on ‘Unconstitutionality of Carbon Neutrality Basic Act’
  • 28 December 2023: Defendant submits presidential opinion to Constitutional Court
  • 15 March 15, 2024: Brief submission
  • 29 March 2024: Defendant submits a witness statement (Ahn Young-hwan) to the Constitutional Court
  • 29 March 2024: Defendant submits a witness statement (Yoo Yeon-cheol) to the Constitutional Court
  • 1 April 2024: Submission of the reference opinion (Jo Cheon-ho)
  • 1 April 2024: Submission of the reference opinion (Park Deok-young)
  • 23 April 2024: First public hearing
  • 13 May 2024: Submission of supplementary brief
  • 14 May 2024: Ministry of Environment, Office for Government Policy Coordination submit opinion paper
  • 21 May 2024: Second public hearing, final statement by the plaintiff
  • 29 August 2024: Judgment of Constitutional Court

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea (the present case), Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) and Min-A Park v. South Korea. Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean constitutional court ruled. It found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

Status of the case:
Decided. On 29 August 2024, the South Korean constitutional court found a violation of the constitutional rights of future generations in this case.

More information on the case:
For a press report on the case, see here.

On the National Human Rights Commission of Korea’s intervention, see this article in the Korea Herald.

The submissions in the case, including an unofficial English translation of the complaint prepared by the applicants’ counsel, are available via ClimateCaseChart.

For a summary of the constitutional court’s ruling, see here.

Full text of the judgment (Korean):

헌법재판소 – 최근주요결정Download

Suggested citation:

Constitutional Court of South Korea, Do-Hyun Kim and 18 others v. South Korea, judgment of 29 August 2024.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.

Categories
Deforestation Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Farming Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life The United Kingdom

Humane Being v. the United Kingdom

Summary:
On 26 July 2022, the NGO Humane Being submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the United Kingdom’s government hat violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect against the life-threatening risks posted by factory farms. The application invokes Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR. Factory farming, the applicants argue, is responsible for the risk of millions of human deaths due to the climate crisis, future pandemics and antibiotic resistance. The case also challenges the effects of agricultural methane emissions and deforestation, and argues that factory farming at current levels is not compatible with the Government’s emissions reduction commitments.

Status of case:
The ECtHR declared the application inadmissible in a single judge judicial formation in a non-public written procedure. The (anonymous) judge decided that the applicant was not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention or its Protocols to claim to be a victim of a violation within the meaning of Article 34 ECHR. Single judge decisions are not published to the Court’s HUDOC database.

Publication of decision:
Pending

Date of decision:
1 December 2022 (according to the ECtHR’s press release).

More information:
For the NGO’s press release on the application, click here.

Suggested citation:
European Court of Human Rights, Humane Being v. the United Kingdom, no. 36959/22, Decision (single judge) of 1 December 2022.

Last updated:
16 March 2023.