There is a human right to a stable climate and the countries on the duty to protect it, and the Supreme Court has ruled.
Nancy Hernandez Lopez, head of the ICHR Human Rights Court, announced that the announcement of the publication of a decisive consultant opinion on climate change on Thursday, that climate change carries “unusual risks” that people who are already suffering from this feel.
In the 300 -page document that bears its formulation and its 300 -page preparation, its point of view on climatic emergency and human rights is determined, the court says that countries have legal obligations to protect people today and future generations from the effects of climate collapse. This includes taking “urgent and effective” measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the best knowledge of adaptation, international cooperation, and to maintain the threat of climate misinformation.
The investigation has been incited Colombia And Chile, who in 2023 asked about the legal responsibilities that countries must deal with climate change and prevent them from violating people’s human rights.
The Costa Rica court has received a headquarters of hundreds of presentations and held a series of hearing sessions last year in Barbados and Brazilian cities in Brazilia and Manaos.
Wide groups of states, regional bodies, academics, and civil society groups – as well as individual victims of climate collapse – were allowed to participate.
Lopez said: “The evidence that we saw and received during the session and written presentations shows that there is no margin of indifference.”
“Success depends on all of us.”
The founding purpose of iachr is the interpretation and application of the American Human Rights Agreement, a treaty that the American Organization of States (OAS) has believed. But her newly published opinion takes into account a wide range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it confirms that the results are not only applied to the signatories to the conference, but for all 35 members of the Dorsman Organization, which includes the United States and Canada.
The court confirmed the right to a healthy environment, and said for the first time that this includes the right to a stable climate.
This means that countries have legal obligations to regulate emissions from public and private organizations.
The court says that all companies bear the responsibility for not damaging human rights, but those that have been emitted from large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions in the past or present bearing a special responsibility “due to the risks resulting from their activities.” It operates, exploring, extracting, transporting and treating fossil fuels, manufacturing cement and agricultural marriage.
Countries must put more stringent requirements for such sectors, indicating changes in commercial operating conditions, taxes and contributions to transition plans and strategies only, investment in education, adaptation measures, loss of loss and damage. If companies do not comply, they indicate that pollution activities must stop and consider countries to claim compensation for the damage caused by the climate.
He adds that the countries must pass the laws so that companies and blocs can be considered completely national borders to calculate the emissions of their subsidiaries.
It is also the duty of states to ensure a fair transition to a cleaner society, and it must ensure that this does not involve in itself human rights, for example, when mining the critical minerals needed for electric cars.
“This is not only a shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy,” said Marcela Ribeiro, the Latin American Environmental Organization Organization. “This is an opportunity for the structural shift that will correct historical inequality and protect people and ecosystems.”
Iachr also recognized the rights of nature and countries on the duty to restore damage to the ecosystems caused by climate change.
Louisa Gomez, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law, said that the court had “critical contact” between the effects of the climate crisis on people’s rights and ecosystems, and how those responsible for guaranteeing these rights interact. “He sends a clear message that cannot be tolerated with impunity for climate matters.”
The Human Rights Court between America is the second of the four senior courts to publish a consulting opinion on climate change.
The first court to publish its opinion, the International Court of the Law of the Sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that destroy the marine environment, and Countries bear a legal responsibility to control it.
The International Court of Justice held hearings on its opinion last December and is expected to be published in the coming months. Meanwhile, the African Court on Human Rights and the People only began this process.
These documents are not technically binding but are considered reliable because they summarize the current law. They are expected to be used in litigation and future political negotiations.
Viviana KRSTICEVIC, Executive Director of the Center for Justice and International Law, a non -governmental organization for human rights that supported Colombia and Chile’s advisory opinion, said that the new opinion gives a “very rich road map” to respond to climate emergencies across society, including a series of standards for national strategies that can be very important to reach COP30 in Brazil.
