05 September 2025
Epistemic Authority and the Right to Science in AO-32/25
Traditionally, the right to science as occupied a marginal place within the contentious and advisory architecture of the Inter-American system. However, in its Advisory Opinion–AO-32/25, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights changes this framework by shifting the right to science from a peripheral tool of knowledge dissemination to a central axis of disputes over epistemic authority in public policy formation. This repositioning is not merely about expanding the scope of an undervalued right but about redefining its legal status based on the structural transformations imposed by the climate crisis on the normative production forms and institutional recognition of knowledge. Continue reading >>
0 
04 September 2025
The Evasion of Historical Responsibility?
The International Court Advisory’s advisory opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change has been celebrated as marking the start of a “new era of climate reparations.” In my contribution, I want to draw attention to how, even as the ICJ opened the door to climate reparations, it was evasive on the key temporal questions that are central to any future claims about reparations owed by individual countries for their historical greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the advisory opinion avoided addressing how colonial histories continue to shape present day climate injustices and the need to decolonize international law. Continue reading >>
0
03 September 2025
“Doing the Utmost”
The ICJ found that some norms, previously thought not binding and falling under the unfettered discretion of States (e.g. the content of NDCs) are in fact binding obligations of conduct based on a due diligence standard, and their breach gives rise to state responsibility. In this blog post, I address some pertinent issues regarding due diligence as addressed by the ICJ, as well as ITLOS and the IACtHR. In particular, I focus on the relationship between obligations of result and obligations of conduct, the nature of due diligence, factors to determine its content, and the legal consequences of not acting with the required diligence. Continue reading >>
0
06 August 2025
The Struggle Against Fossil Sovereignty
Over the course of decades, law has primarily functioned to enable and support the extraction, production, and consumption of fossil energy. As a result, planetary destruction remains not only awfully lucrative but also, in many cases, legally protected. The substantive impact of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will depend largely on how effectively it contributes to dismantling the stronghold of fossil sovereignty. That tangled web of fossil-friendly laws has often obstructed or blunted progressive climate politics or any other interference with unsustainable, fossil-driven profit-making. Continue reading >>
0
05 August 2025
New Standards in Government Framework Litigation
The ICJ advisory opinion articulates very clearly States’ international obligations with respect to climate change. Its findings that States’ mitigation efforts must reflect their highest possible ambition, be capable of achieving the 1.5oC goal, and be fair and ambitious, determined through the application of CBDR-RC are momentous, as are its conclusions on remedies. Government framework litigation can serve to hold States to these obligations – just as plaintiffs have done for the past 10 years. Given the multitude of lawsuits pending against governments around the world. Continue reading >>
0
24 July 2025
Corporations, Climate, and the Court
Corporations, especially those engaged in fossil fuel production, agriculture, construction, and transportation, play a significant role in the climate crisis and in its human rights impacts. It is thus of critical importance that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25) not only directly addresses corporate climate and human rights impacts, but also provides some pathways forward on these persistent barriers to accountability. This blog discusses AO-32/25’s holdings and innovations as related to business and human rights and reflects on their broader legal implications. Continue reading >>
0
24 July 2025
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
“An existential threat” – this is how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) characterized climate change in its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. In the most significant development in international climate law since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the ICJ outlined numerous obligations that could significantly shape the contours of international environmental law and global climate governance. Continue reading >>
0
22 July 2025
Protecting Rights in the Anthropocene
On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its long-awaited Advisory Opinion No. 32 (AO-32/25) on the “Climate Emergency and Human Rights”. With its opinion, the IACtHR became the first human rights monitoring body to recognize that a healthy climate is an autonomous and justiciable human right. This blog post traces the emergence of this new right within the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) and highlights its most transformative elements for theory and practice. Continue reading >>
0
21 July 2025
Addressing Accountability in the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion
With AO-32/25, the IACtHR has delivered a historic and bold affirmation that climate change is not only an environmental emergency but also a profound human rights crisis, one that requires both prevention and reparation. By articulating States’ duties to provide remedies, the IACtHR has moved the conversation to one of legal accountability and remediation. Continue reading >>
0
18 July 2025
The Bloom of Nature’s Rights
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) advisory opinion on human rights and the climate emergency (AO-32/25) addresses numerous dimensions of the climate crisis, setting an important precedent for the protection of our planet. This post focuses on one particularly significant development: the IACtHR’s recognition of Nature as a subject of rights. We argue that the IACtHR’s pronouncements on this subject mark the advent of an ecocentric paradigm whose implications are likely to be far-reaching and transformative. Continue reading >>
0