Climate Emergency: In a historic process with record participation, the public hearings for the Advisory Opinion before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded.

• The highest regional human rights court heard from more than 170 organizations, experts, affected communities, and activists on the impact of the climate emergency.
• The hearings were held in Brasilia and Manaus in May, and a first part was held in Barbados in April.

Manaus, Brazil, May 30, 2024 – The public hearings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) on the advisory opinion on climate emergency and human rights requested by the states of Chile and Colombia have concluded. The hearings began in April in Barbados and continued in Brazil, in the cities of Brasilia and Manaus. This was a historic dialogue in which the Court heard from hundreds of organizations, activists, indigenous communities, experts and academics, and young people from around the world on the impact of the climate crisis.

“We feel very honored to be here, in the Amazon, which is highly symbolic and representative for the issue we are considering, as the Amazon rainforest is the lungs of the world,” remarked the president of the Court, Judge Nancy Hernandez, at the beginning of the first day of debate in Manaus.

During the hearings, the topics discussed included policies to mitigate the effects caused by the climate emergency, the obligations of States to address the crisis, the varying impacts on different populations such as children and youth, women and indigenous communities, and the work of environmental defenders along with the risks they face in their work. Throughout the hearings, the Court was able to hear the testimonies of young activists such as Francisco Vera, from Colombia and members of the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Children and Adolescents (Red Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes or REDNNyAs) and the Latin American Movement of Working Children and Adolescents (el Movimiento Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Niñas, niños y Adolescentes Trabajadores). Testimonies also included the experiences of members of indigenous communities such as Patricia Gualinga, a Kichwa indigenous leader from Ecuador, and Darío Mejía Montalvo, member and former president of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, among many others.

Viviana Krsticevic, Executive Director of CEJIL, stated: “The hearings of the Inter-American Court allowed for broad and diverse participation of States, experts, scientists, civil society organizations, children, indigenous peoples, and advocates in its processes. More than a hundred people and 300 institutions presented to the Court the many impacts of the climate emergency, scientific findings, and community experiences essential to understand the phenomenon. They offered legal solutions to the questions posed by Chile and Colombia, and shared the perspectives, proposals, and knowledge of children, indigenous peoples, and Afro-descendant communities. The hearings generated a space of energy and hope for a possible future where we address the climate emergency in a way that minimizes its impacts and avoids the tipping points pointed out by the scientific community and the political consensus expressed in the Paris Agreements. Now, the Court must decide”.

At CEJIL, one of our priorities was to collaborate in the diversification of voices, opinions, and knowledge. That is why throughout this process we worked with more than 1,500 people, including scientists, children and youth, members of indigenous communities, and human rights defenders. This work led to the creation of five briefs that we submitted to the Court and to support the various presentations given by other experts in the field.

In these briefs, we focus on the State obligations derived from the duties of prevention and guarantees in human rights in the face of the climate emergency; the right to access information and the obligations to actively provide information and transparency; the different obligations of the States with respect to the rights of children and new generations; the treaty obligations of protection and prevention for environmental and territorial defenders; and State obligations arising from the consultation procedures and access to justice in the face of the climate emergency. “At CEJIL, we are carrying out a broad initiative to be able to make and support the participation of the voices of a wide range of organizations and experts in the region, and and we applaud this powerful forum for dialogue provided by the Court in Barbados and Brazil,” said Florencia Reggiardo of CEJIL.

The Inter-American Court is the only regional human rights court to receive a request for an advisory opinion on a climate emergency. Its response could provide guidance to the States of the region for the development of policies and programs at the local, national, and international levels in accordance with the commitments assumed under the American Convention on Human Rights, and other human rights and environmental treaties.

Other Processes in the World

The Advisory Opinion before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is not the only action being taken in the world to seek answers and guidelines in the fight against the climate emergency. On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued its opinion in response to the request sent by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS) on the obligations of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to climate change. In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases constitute pollution of the marine environment and that it is therefore the duty of States to prevent and control pollution of the sea as a result of greenhouse gases in order to prevent maritime pollution.

At the same time, at the request of Vanuatu, along with 130 other States, a resolution was adopted in March 2023 requesting an advisory opinion for the highest judicial tribunal of the UN to issue guidelines on the legal basis for climate justice. Additionally, there are currently several cases of climate litigation at the national and international level. In April alone, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) resolved three important cases in response to the inaction of the Swiss, Portuguese and French states on the impacts of the climate emergency. Two of them were found inadmissible (Careme v. France and Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal), but in the case of Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, the ECtHR condemned Switzerland for violating the European Convention on Human Rights due to its handling of climate change.

The law is one of the many tools that seeks to assist and encourage prompt solutions, and expedite possible responses to the climate emergency. It is crucial to bring the scientific community closer to the field of human rights, in order to enrich its work and highlight the role of law as a complementary tool in the development of policies related to the climate emergency.