Historic Inter-American Court Ruling: A Game-Changer for Environmental Defenders?

By Luisa Gómez and Alexandra Colón-Amil
WASHINGTON DC, Jul 31 2025 – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued one of the most progressive climate justice decisions of our time. Its historic Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency and human rights, released on July 3, 2025, was unequivocal: States have legal obligations under international human rights law to reduce, prevent, and address climate damage, including reining in big polluters.

Moreover, this ruling reaffirmed States’ duty to protect environmental defenders — people, communities, and organizations courageously working to safeguard human rights, their territories, and the environment — whose efforts are vital in confronting the climate crisis.

This Opinion is part of a growing series of climate-related rulings by international courts. It landed on the eve of the July 23, 2025, landmark climate ruling by the International Court of Justice and after the historic April 21, 2024, climate ruling by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica. Credit: Luisa Gómez / CIEL

Together, these three opinions add powerful momentum to the global pursuit of climate justice and accountability, grounding climate action in binding law and offering a roadmap for courts, advocates, and policymakers worldwide.

The process for the Inter-American climate opinion was initiated two years ago by a request from Chile and Colombia, which ignited significant interest from the international community, States, Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, civil society actors, environmental defenders, and community organizations.

The consultative process was the most participatory in the Court’s history, with 613 actors submitting 263 briefs and 185 delegations participating in three public hearings held in various locations, including the Caribbean and the heart of the Brazilian Amazon.

In its groundbreaking opinion, the Court made clear that we are facing a climate emergency that drastically impacts human rights. In response, it called on States to undertake urgent and effective action, such as regulating the corporations primarily responsible for the crisis, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry; safeguarding the right to a healthy climate; and recognizing Nature as a subject of rights.

Notably, the Advisory Opinion acknowledged the critical role of environmental defenders in combating climate change, promoting rights-based solutions, and holding polluters accountable. At a time when democratic institutions are increasingly under pressure worldwide, the Court recognized that these defenders are crucial allies to governments not only in confronting the climate crisis, but also in strengthening democracy and the rule of law.

This is a watershed moment for Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that consistently accounts for the highest number of documented murders of environmental defenders — making up 85 percent of global cases in 2023. Given that this Advisory Opinion applies to all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS), more than 30 countries can no longer ignore what the Court calls the States’ “special duty of protection” toward environmental defenders.

This duty includes ensuring a safe environment where they can operate without stigmatization, threats, restrictions, or risks to their lives, as well as investigating, punishing, and providing reparations for any harm they may face – from attacks to intimidation.

The Court’s message is unmistakable: environmental defenders have the right to impartial, timely, and thorough justice. States must initiate investigations into crimes against defenders ex officio — that is, on their own initiative and without solely relying on victims to drive the process. Furthermore, States must investigate all attacks against defenders with the same level of urgency and rigor, whether it’s a threat, defamation, harassment, intimidation, or an act of deadly violence.

Criminalization is now the most common tactic to silence defenders globally, according to Global Witness. In recent years, there has been a surge of laws aimed at eroding the rights and ability of activists and civil society organizations to take part in climate action. In its landmark decision, the Court acknowledged that environmental defenders are victims of various forms of judicial harassment, arbitrary detentions, disproportionate sentences, and the misuse of laws to restrict their work.

The Court also addressed the growing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) to suppress environmental advocacy. It urged States to repeal laws abused to persecute and punish defenders, set up procedures to rapidly dismiss baseless legal actions, and train law enforcement and judicial authorities to prevent judicial harassment and protect the right to defend the environment.

As it has done in previous decisions, the Court consistently referred to the standards of the Escazú Agreement in this climate opinion. This is the first binding regional treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean to promote environmental democracy — the right to information, participation, and justice.

Notably, the Escazú Agreement is the only treaty in the world with specific provisions to ensure a safe and supportive environment for defenders. Yet, despite being the most violent region worldwide for those who defend the planet, the Escazú Agreement has not been ratified by all Latin American and Caribbean countries. To date, it has entered into force in 18 countries.

The Court’s ongoing reference to the Escazú Agreement in its rulings, as a supplementary source for interpreting the law, has two significant effects. The first is legal. The Court is effectively incorporating the protections of the Escazú Agreement into Inter-American standards — the regional norms that countries in the Americas are expected to follow to protect human rights.

This means that Escazú protections are applicable not only to the 18 countries that have ratified the Agreement, but also to all OAS member states.

The second is a political effect. The Court’s references to the Escazú Agreement in its decisions show that the Agreement aligns with and strengthens Inter-American standards for the protection of human rights. This sends a message that may prompt countries in the region to ratify the Escazú Agreement as a means of fulfilling their international human rights obligations.

We must not forget that without robust implementation, the protections mentioned above remain fragile and defenders remain at risk — especially women, Indigenous Peoples, and trans activists, who face unique and more severe threats. In Latin America and around the world, a strong movement is advancing to protect defenders and uphold their rights.

With its climate opinion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirmed that States must be part of this movement, fulfilling their legal duty to protect the right to defend the environment. The time to act is now.

Luisa Gómez is, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Alexandra Colón-Amil is CIEL Campaign Specialist

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);