SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
international tribunal for the law of the sea
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global Tribunal Issues 'Historic' Ruling for Oceans and Small Island Nations
"Protecting the global commons of the oceans and atmosphere is a matter of life and death," said one expert who praised the decision.
May 21, 2024
An international tribunal on Tuesday delivered a decision that green groups and leaders of small island nations celebrated as a "groundbreaking victory for ocean and climate protection."
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) announced in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and parties to the treaty "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The advisory came in response to a December 2022 submission by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), which includes Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Niue, Palau, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
"The tribunal's opinion is an historic legal victory for small island nations, demonstrating their global leadership on this crucial issue for the future of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, a COSIS legal representative to ITLOS. "It is a manifest injustice that they make negligible contributions to the problem, but suffer the worst effects of rising sea levels and extreme weather events that have brought some to the brink of extinction."
"As the guardian of the ocean treaty, ITLOS has taken the critical first step in recognizing that what small island nations have been fighting for at the COP negotiations for decades is already part of international law," he continued, referring to United Nations climate summits. "The major polluters must prevent catastrophic harm to small island nations, and if they fail to do so, they must compensate for the loss and damages."
"To those that would hide behind the weaknesses of international climate treaties, this opinion makes clear that compliance with the Paris agreement alone is not enough."
COSIS was initiated at COP26 by Tuvalu along with Antigua and Barbuda, whose prime minister, Gaston Browne, welcomed the ITLOS decision, stressing that "small island states are fighting for their survival" and "some will become inhabitable soon because of the failure to mitigate greenhouse emissions."
Eselealofa Apinelu, Tuvalu's high commissioner to Fiji, pointed out that the advisory opinion "spells out the legally binding obligations of all states to protect the marine environment; to protect against the existential threats posed by climate change."
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Climate & Energy Program director Nikki Reisch noted Tuesday that "to those that would hide behind the weaknesses of international climate treaties, this opinion makes clear that compliance with the Paris agreement alone is not enough."
"Pledges and promises at annual climate conferences do not satisfy states' legal duties to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control the greenhouse gas emissions polluting the marine environment, in line with climate science and the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C," Reisch continued.
"We know that doing so requires rapidly phasing out all fossil fuels. States that fail to comply face legal responsibility," she added. "Protecting the global commons of the oceans and atmosphere is a matter of life and death—not just for entire marine ecosystems and the coastal and island communities most directly dependent on them and at greatest risk from climate change, but for all of humanity and the planet as a whole."
CIEL and Greenpeace International last year had formally urged ITLOS to reach the conclusion that the tribunal ultimately did.
Louise Fournier, legal counsel for climate justice and liability at Greenpeace, also cheered the outcome, saying Tuesday that "the ITLOS advisory opinion marks a significant step forward in international environmental law and the protection of our oceans."
"It sets a clear legal precedent for addressing climate change through existing international frameworks and reinforces states' responsibilities to act on climate change," Fournier said. "Oceans are the world's largest carbon sink. Our oceans provide us with food, livelihoods, culture, and half of the oxygen in the atmosphere; they are vital in the fight against the climate crisis, and in maintaining all life on the planet. ITLOS confirmed it unanimously: Climate change is an existential threat to human rights."
As Reuters reported:
But the road to concerted global action is far from smooth.
China, the world's biggest carbon polluter, had argued in court that the tribunal did not have general authority to issue advisory opinions, saying these could fragment international law. China's foreign ministry was not immediately available for comment.
Additional forthcoming legal opinions could further complicate matters, as the international community prepares for COP29.
"This is the first of three advisory opinions international tribunals have been asked to provide to clarify what legal obligations states have to combat climate change," Euronews explained. "Opinions are also expected from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Come Here Seeking Urgent Help': Vulnerable Islands Want Climate Pollution Covered by Ocean Treaty
"We are confident that international courts and tribunals will not allow this injustice to continue unchecked," the prime minister of Tuvalu said.
Sep 11, 2023
Do greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels count as ocean pollution under the Law of the Sea?
That's the question that nine small island states that are low emitting but extremely vulnerable to the climate crisis have asked the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in a landmark hearing that began Monday in Hamburg, Germany.
"We come here seeking urgent help, in the strong belief that international law is an essential mechanism for correcting the manifest injustice that our people are suffering as a result of climate change," Tuvalu's Prime Minister Kausea Natano said in a statement shared by Eureporter. "We are confident that international courts and tribunals will not allow this injustice to continue unchecked."
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea governs the shared use and protection of the ocean. A total of 168 countries—the U.S. not among them—have ratified it.
Under Article 194(1), those 168 states have agreed to "take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from any source." Yet, despite the fact that 25% of carbon dioxide emissions and 90% of global heating end up in the oceans, leading to threats like marine heatwaves, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and more extreme tropical storms, it's still not clear what duties nations have to prevent climate pollution under international maritime law.
"What's the difference between having a toxic chimney spewing across a border to carbon dioxide emissions?" Payam Akhavan, lead counsel and chair of the committee of legal experts advising the nations that brought the question, asked The Guardian. "Some of these states will become uninhabitable in a generation and many will be submerged under the sea. This is an attempt to use all the tools available to force major polluters to change course while they still can."
"A positive advisory opinion could be essential to the global fight against climate change."
The island nations—organized as the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS)—first requested an advisory opinion from the tribunal in December 2022. COSIS formed in 2021 during the COP26 U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, and its members include Antigua and Barbuda, Tuvalu, Palau, Niue, Vanuatu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the Bahamas, according to ClientEarth.
These nations say they have only contributed 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions but contend with disproportionate climate impacts, from sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion to coastal erosion, The New York Times reported.
"Despite our negligible emission of greenhouse gases, COSIS's members have suffered and continue to suffer the overwhelming burden of climate change's adverse impacts," Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Alfonso Browne said in a statement shared by Eureporter. "Without rapid and ambitious action, climate change may prevent my children and grandchildren from living on the island of their ancestors, the island that we call home. We cannot remain silent in the face of such injustice."
The ITLOS hearing is scheduled to last through September 25. In addition to the members of COSIS, more than 50 nations will weigh in with written or oral arguments, according to The New York Times. Among them will be major greenhouse gas emitters like China, India, and European Union member states. A ruling is expected within months.
While COSIS is only asking for an advisory opinion for now, legal experts say the decision could have a major impact on climate litigation going forward, especially if ITLOS rules that signatories do have an obligation to protect the ocean from climate pollution.
"The islands could hold major emitters of greenhouse gases responsible for damage by their failure to implement the Paris climate accord," University of Edinburgh emeritus international law professor Alan Boyle told The New York Times.
That is the outcome that legal climate advocates like ClientEarth are hoping for.
"A positive advisory opinion could be essential to the global fight against climate change," the group wrote. "A legal interpretation by the tribunal that the Law of the Sea requires states all over the world mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions to prevent harm to the marine environment opens up the possibility that climate commitments such as those made under the Paris agreement may need to be enforced to protect the world's oceans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular