A Rights Revolution in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency

Tem main objective of this work is to present the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) to the legal professionals in Brazil, in particular to Brazilian judges. To accomplish that, we review the worldwide change of perspective concerning human rights that transpired as of 1948, by means of a new conception thereof. State sovereignty is relativized. The UN is organized, the Global Human Rights Regime is formatted, and, in its wake, the regional human rights regimes are also established. One by one, the European, African, and the incipient Arab and Asian regional human rights regimes are referred to and contextualized. At this point of the research, we focus on the Inter-American Human Rights System, the regional human rights regime of the Americas, and point out its origin, organs and normative instruments. Among its organs, we highlight the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as the court of last resort for the interpretation of the several normative instruments of the system, among which we point out the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) as the most important. Also known as Pact of San Jos, Costa Rica, this convention establishes a unique and efficient system of state responsibility for the infringement of its precepts. Pursuant to the ACHR, complaints under the IAHRS shall be made before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, whose competences are also reviewed. In order to grant to the reader an in-depth knowledge on the guarantees of an independent, impartial, and preappointed judge, the second chapter of this work focuses on the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We set forth several litigation cases and one advisory opinion to convey to the reader a precise notion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights's construction of such guarantees. In the third chapter, from the concepts of an independent, impartial and pre-appointed judge in Brazil, we make a comparison with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights's case law and demonstrate that it is essential that Brazilian judges be acquainted with the IAHRS case law to necessarily apply it, whereas failing to do so may subject the State of Brazil to international responsibility. Themes such as the hierarchy of international treaties in Brazil, control of conventionality, and communication among courts are also reviewed in order to provide the reader with a broad perspective of the influence of the IAHRS on the Brazilian Laws.

This Preface to the EPL Special Issue 55 (6) 2025 on the Advisory Opinions (2024-2025) of the International Courts and Tribunals (ICTs) onClimate Change seeks to provide an overview and serves as a lead research article to introduce the legal trajectory adopted for seeking an authoritative view on the “obligations of the States” under international law and “legal consequences under these obligations for States” (worded differently before each ICT) in relation to climate change from the three ICTs. The three marathon processes for seeking Advisory Opinions (AOs) took place before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The fourth one is pending (since May 02, 2025) before the African Court of Human & Peoples’ Rights. The respective ‘requests’ were presented to these ICTs on May 29, 2023 (ICJ), January 9, 2023 (IACtHR) and December 12, 2022 (ITLOS). After going through their procedural craft of formal requests, written statements, oral presentations and specially arranged meetings (by the ICJ) with some stakeholders such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the three ICTs delivered their respective AOs on July 23, 2025 (ICJ, The Hague), July 03, 2025 (IACtHR, San Jose) and May 21, 2024 (ITLOS, Hamburg). Thus, the AOs of these three ICTs provide a unique legal corpus ostensibly for strengthening legal basis of the State-centric consensual regime (1992 UNFCCC, 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement) on climate change. These AOs have brought to the fore role of the ICTs as ‘sentinels’ even as entire climate change global regulatory process (1992-2025) seem to be floundering after 33 years in spite of grim scientific projections about the “climate emergency”. It is in this backdrop that this preface-cum-research article provides the context, a preliminary overview of the outcomes of the three ICT AOs and possible future trajectory to resolve the “climate conundrum”, beyond the three AOs.

O Sistema Interamericano de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos está inserido em um contexto de busca pela máxima proteção e garantia de direitos humanos. Assim, além de uma Constituição Federal que traz no seu bojo a vontade de concretizar direitos humanos e fundamentais, tem-se ainda um Sistema Global e um Sistema Regional de Proteção, o que evidencia a relevância e atualidade do tema. Partindo-se dessa premissa, trabalha-se neste artigo com os conteúdos que abarcam o direito à não-discriminação e à igual proteção perante a lei, especialmente a partir da lógica da função consultiva exercida pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Nesse sentido, tem-se como problema o seguinte questionamento: qual o posicionamento adotado na Opinião Consultiva 24/2017 pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, no que tange aos direitos da comunidade LGBT, enquanto grupo em situação de vulnerabilidade? Para tanto, utiliza-se o método de abordagem dedutivo, e objetiva-se, num primeiro momento, abordar a lógica de atuação da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, com foco na sua função consultiva; verificar os principais aspectos no que tange à proteção dos grupos em situação de vulnerabilidade sob a ótica da Convenção Americana; e, por fim, analisar criticamente a Opinião Consultiva 24/2017, emitida pela Corte, que versa sobre a proteção que deve ser conferida pelos Estados à comunidade LGBT. Conclui-se, ao final, que a Corte compreende que os Estados devem adotar medidas de proteção a esse grupo, evitando qualquer tipo de discriminação e erradicando, ou ao menos reduzindo, as violências que decorrem da identidade de gênero e sexual.

The Inter-American Human Rights System includes what is considered to be a relatively progressive international legal framework to protect gender rights. A strength of the system is its companion framework concerning violence against women, which has been used by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights over the past 20 years to develop advanced norms and jurisprudence on violence against women. Despite this, evidence demonstrates that acts of gender-based discrimination and sexual violence continue to be commonplace throughout Latin America and were exacerbated by COVID-19. Using a case study from Ecuador, this article analyses how norms, specifically those developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, are frequently unable to effectively challenge the stereotypes that facilitate school-related gender-based violence. By applying decolonial feminist theory, the article explores the complexities that arise when integrating regional human rights norms at a local level, such as within school communities, and provides a rationale for why decisions of the Inter-American Court may not have had the desired effect of reducing violence against girls in schools. This article ultimately explores the limitations of the Inter-American Human Rights system in promoting change at a community level due to the persistence of underlying gender-based colonial structures.

INTRODUCTIONWhen Canada became a Member of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990, most of Latin America was at a crossroad in a post-cold war transition from authoritarian regimes to democracies. The Canadian government played a fundamental role in the creation and development of the organization's unit for the promotion of democracy, as well as of other similar initiatives, in this period. This mark of leadership would have an important impact on the organization later on, including regarding the adoption of the 2001 Inter- American Democratic Charter, which attests to the importance of human rights for democracy and vice-versa. In fact, the promotion of democratic processes and the consolidation of democratic institutions, as well as the promotion and protection of human rights, are certainly among the OAS's most significant successes in the institution's recent history.1By joining the OAS,2 Canada also joined the inter-American human rights system. While Canada has certainly been an important ally of the system, it has often been criticized for its timid membership. This article will discuss Canada's policy towards the OAS human rights regime, touching upon the regime's successes and weaknesses. It will also try to contextualize the discussion in light of Canada's broader policy towards human rights and Latin America.THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMThe inter-American system of protection of human rights is generally considered to be composed of the norms and institutions created by the OAS to promote and protect human rights within the hemisphere. The main normative instruments dealing with human rights are the OAS charter, several human rights treaties, including the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of other instruments, including the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.3The inter-American commission on human rights, composed of seven elected independent experts (commissioners), is the principal organ of the OAS charged with ensuring the protection of human rights in the hemisphere. It also serves as a consultative organ of the organization on this matter. It promotes human rights in the region, formulates recommendations to member states, observes human rights situations, including via in loco visits. It publishes reports on thematic issues or the human rights situation in a specific country, etc. In recent years, the commission's main activity has been to process petitions lodged against member states by individuals and groups alleging violations of inter- American human rights norms. (In order to do so, complainants must first exhaust domestic remedies nationally, or be unable to do so). The inter-American commission on human rights can refer cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, in serious and urgent cases that may cause irreparable harm to persons, it can adopt precautionary measures. The commission reports annually to the OAS general assembly.The Inter- American Court of Human Rights, composed of seven elected independent judges, rules on contentious cases between the commission and member states regarding allegations of violations of the rights contained in the inter- American instruments that grant it jurisdiction to do so. To be subject to the court's jurisdiction, a state must first have ratified the convention and expressly recognized the jurisdiction of the court. The court can issue an order or judgment, which is binding for states as a matter of public international law. The court can also adopt advisory opinions regarding the interpretation of the convention, or any other instrument related to human rights in the Americas, at the request of the commission or any member state. The court can also be consulted by member states regarding the compatibility of one of its laws with the convention. In serious and urgent cases, the court can also adopt provisional measures. The court reports annually to the OAS general assembly. …

Climate change is the justice challenge of our century, and the increasingly serious impacts of climate change on human societies and ecosystems are raising important international legal challenges. States and stakeholders are appealing to international courts for clarity concerning their responsibilities in the global response to climate change, as well as their accountability for climaterelated loss and damage. Through advisory proceedings, these institutions are being asked to clarify the legal obligations of States in addressing climate change, including the prevention of ocean impacts, the protection of human rights, and in international law more broadly. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are at the forefront of such proceedings with the potential to reshape international climate law and governance. In this article, expert legal scholars highlight the significance of climate advisory proceedings in these tribunals, briefly underlining the legal reasoning of the ITLOS advisory opinion, its implications for international climate governance, and the questions and arguments before the IACtHR and the ICJ. The article explores, in the context of global efforts to implement the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other climate litigation including in international courts and tribunals, the transformative potential of recent advisory opinions sought from the ITLOS, the IACtHR and the ICJ. In their responses to the pressing need for legal clarity in a world grappling with unprecedented climate challenges, the article suggests, courts are offered an historic opportunity to shape the contributions of international law to global sustainability, justice and the survival of life on Earth.

The legitimacy of the so-called Inter-American human rights system has grown through time, yet currently it is confronting new challenges, born from new hemispheric realities, that are once again testing the resiliency and pro-activeness of its organs. Organization of American States (OAS) Member States entrusted the supervision of State compliance with the human rights obligations to two organs: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the Commission), which is a Charter and Convention organ, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court), which is exclusively a Convention organ. The Commissions individual complaint jurisdiction must not be confused with its authority to issue reports on the general human rights situation in a specific country or on a particular human rights issue. Finally, victims access to most stages of the individual complaint procedure before the Commission and the Court has been greatly improved. Keywords: individual complaint procedure; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Inter-American human rights system; organization of American states (OAS)

Under the inter-American human rights system, inter-State disputes seem largely irrelevant. Such irrelevance contrasts with the European human rights system, where the amount of inter-State disputes is significant (and growing), and is similar to the African human rights regime, where there is a very low number of inter-State disputes. In more than four decades since the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights, there are only two inter-State disputes brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—one of the two bodies that, along with the Inter-American Court, make up the regional human rights system. The virtual inexistence of inter-State complaints, however, does not mean an absence of human rights disputes among members of the Organization of American States (oas). In fact, States resort to other mechanisms to process their disputes. Therefore, to explore how inter-States disputes actually operate under inter-American human rights law, it is necessary to broaden the view and look beyond the specific mechanism of inter-State communications established in the American Convention. This article discusses the two inter-State communications that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has so far examined, and analyses other mechanisms—typically, advisory opinions by the Inter-American Court—that serve as a substitute for inter-State communications. The article shows how oas States use advisory opinions as a covert inter-State dispute mechanism and argues that the Inter-American Court should articulate a clear set of admissibility standards to address this practice.

In this essay, we analyze how different actors contribute to compliance with the advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American human rights system. The essay briefly reviews the discussion around the binding force of, and compliance with, advisory opinions. It then analyzes how the holdings in advisory opinions issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) over the last forty years have had a notable impact on states and how different interstate actors, including the executive, the legislature, the national judiciary, and local regulatory bodies, ensure compliance.

ABSTRACTAnalysing the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights highlights major problems of access to justice in rural Latin America. A majority of the cases ruled on by the Inter-American Court since its inception in 1979 concern violations of human rights in major urban centres. This despite the fact that the worst human rights violations committed in Latin America in recent decades have targeted rural populations. Under specific historical conditions, some rural victims and their advocates have successfully brought their cases to the Inter-American Court. Notably, most of the Colombian cases adjudicated by the court have concerned events in rural conflict zones. In the case of Peru, the focus has been almost exclusively on events in the capital city, Lima. The stark contrast between Colombia and Peru points to a broader trend. Further research must be carried out to determine why, how and with what effect the rural victims of state-sponsored violence have sought international justice remedies, where these efforts have succeeded, and where they have foundered. Human rights mobilisation at the local level determines where Inter-American Court cases originate. This article considers the geographic distribution of cases brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as a function of the strength of advocacy networks connecting rural and urban areas, and beyond, in relation to Latin American histories of dictatorship, counterinsurgency, and the evolution of the inter-American human rights system itself.

The Right of a Healthy Urban Environment As An Human Right: the Missed Opportunity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Despite its extended criticism, is there any room for the margin of appreciation in the Inter-American Human Rights System? The article claims there is, if we ground the doctrine in the principle of subsidiarity. This principle gives a solid foundation to the margin of appreciation and shows that the doctrine does not respond to an exclusively European reality. It also helps to identify the factors that determine the width of the margin given to the states and how they interact with each other: the absence or presence of absolute rights, the quality of the domestic judiciary, and the need for a closer participation of the community and the expertise of the state. These conditions are analyzed in the light of the case law of the inter-American human rights system. The article explores the proper role of the margin of appreciation within human rights adjudication and its compatibility with the doctrine of conventionality control developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Reparations as a consequence of the harm suffered by individuals is a general principle of law, recognized by States as a mechanism to compensate for the harm caused by others. In the regional systems for the protection of human rights, the courts have made important advances throughout their operation in generating progressive interpretations of the principle of reparations as a consequence of human rights violations by States. In the inter-American human rights system, the role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has had an important evolutionary development on the interpretations of how States should repair violations committed in their territories. 
 As has already been indicated in the international arena as well as by national courts, reparation for the harm caused is not simply the payment of sums of money. This would be the simplest form that States would have for having caused human rights violations or even crimes against humanity. For this reason, the Inter-American Court, since its first case, has been indicating to the States that economic reparation is only one part of the State's obligation to make reparations. The most important judgments that the regional Court has indicated in its 40 years are marked by the so-called “non-pecuniary reparations”. In other words, reparations that seek to ensure that the events that occurred do not happen again, that the States commit to train their officials in human rights and respect for persons, build schools, hospitals, and roads to improve the living conditions of the victims, etc. 
 For further more about this evolution, this paper develops the main jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on reparations and how international law has already set important standards to be applied by States.

ABSTRACTThe article contributes a critical analysis of the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), reviewing the protection of migrants’ rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Specifically, the article’s aim is to scrutinise the possible constraints upon growth as regards the role played by the IACtHR. It examines the main drivers behind the evolution of the case law and the key principles laid down in emblematic cases with a view to answering this question. The article also discusses the articulation of a judicial dialogue between the IACtHR and its European counterpart, which has developed the jurisprudence on both sides. Evidence demonstrates that the IACtHR is being innovative in creating its own authentic judicial dialogue with national constitutional courts. Other regional human rights systems, such as the African system, could learn from this. Finally, the article identifies the success and the pitfalls in the approach taken to protect migrants’ rights.

From a Latin-American perspective, even in a context where the rule of law has been under attack or has been very weak, the role of human rights NGOs has been and is very relevant in terms of documenting human rights violations, and seeking and bringing justice for the victims of those violations, as well as acting as a guardian angel to the Inter-American human rights system. The role of NGOs within the Inter-American human rights system has to be understood taking into account the specific political and the legal-normative context on the continent. Indeed, the role played by human rights NGOs in the Americas has responded/responds to the political reality of repressive regimes and present-day fragile democracies struggling to uphold human rights and rule of law standards. Furthermore, the legal-normative context, i.e. the American Convention on Human Rights and the interpretation given by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to its provisions, has also given and gives NGOs ample space to interact through different methods and strategies in a less active to a very active manner with the human rights monitoring bodies from 1959 on.