On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion AO-32/25, its most wide-ranging and ambitious interpretation of State obligations in the context of the climate emergency to date. The opinion responds to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile, and is notable not only for its breadth, but also for its potential to reshape how international human rights law responds to the climate crisis.
This post focuses on one notable aspect of AO-32/25 that has not received attention in other commentary–the IACtHR’s engagement with gender issues. The questions posed to the IACtHR explicitly incorporated a gender lens, a feature still rarely seen in international environmental or climate litigation. Chile and Colombia asked, among other things, what measures should be adopted to ensure the protection of environmental and territorial defenders, “as well as women, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendant communities” in the context of climate change. Specific questions also highlighted the differentiated and intersectional impacts of climate harm, and called on the IACtHR to address “gender-based violence, discrimination,” and the guarantees needed to protect the work of women human rights defenders. Although the IACtHR ultimately reformulated the questions and removed explicit references to gender in several parts, it retained a broad reference in Question 3, which asks about “the scope of obligations to respect, guarantee, and adopt the necessary measures to ensure, without discrimination, … the rights of women … as well as other vulnerable population groups in the context of the climate emergency” (para. 28).
In a previous post analyzing the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), we noted that the ECtHR missed the opportunity to engage with the legal implications of gender and age as intersecting determinants of climate vulnerability. Although the case centered on elderly women, and the ECtHR acknowledged scientific evidence showing their heightened vulnerability to climate-related harms, it ultimately sidelined gender as a legally relevant factor, treating it as part of the background rather than as a basis for rights and remedies. This reflects a broader gap in climate litigation, where gender—despite its centrality to lived experiences of climate harm—remains underexplored and legally underdeveloped.
As we turn to the IACtHR’s AO-32/25, we ask: has this gap begun to close? Does the IACtHR, with its jurisprudence on gender and diversity, offer a more robust framework for understanding and addressing gendered dimensions of climate change? We find that the IACtHR has indeed taken an important step forward, both in recognizing gender as a key determinant of climate vulnerability and in identifying gender-responsive obligations on States. However, the IACtHR’s comments in this regard remain general and often gestural. The obligations identified are limited, narrow, and many relate to data gathering rather than substantial action. Thus, while AO-32/25 is a clear advance in addressing gender in climate litigation, it also reveals the extent of the work that remains to be done.
The IACtHR identifies specific vulnerabilities of women and gender diverse communities
In AO-32/25, the IACtHR makes several important findings regarding gender and the rights of women in the context of the climate crisis.
Disproportionate Impact on Women
The IACtHR acknowledges that climate change has a disproportionate impact on women, particularly those living in poverty, rural areas, or communities that heavily rely on natural resources (para. 594). It emphasizes that climate impacts exacerbate existing gender inequalities, leading to heightened vulnerability in areas such as health, access to water, food security, and exposure to violence (para. 571). In the context of climate disasters, both sudden and slow onset, the IACtHR notes how women can be differentially affected, with women and girls being at greater risk of gender-based violence in the aftermath of disasters (para. 614). As primary breadwinners, caretakers of the family, and water collectors due to dominant understandings of gender roles, they are disproportionately affected by the impacts on food and water security, as well as the health of their household members (para. 420).
Intersectionality and Vulnerability
The IACtHR highlights the need for an intersectional approach that considers how overlapping factors—such as gender, race, Indigeneity, ethnicity, class, and age—shape exposure to climate harm (para. 592). It stresses that women, especially Indigenous and Afro-descendant women, face unique barriers to participation and access to justice, which States must actively address (para. 613). While intersectionality is embraced as a critical dimension of understanding risk and harm, the IACtHR, like other courts before it, takes very limited cognisance of gender as a critical concern in relation to certain other social demographics, specifically including being a child or young person. The discussion of the differentiated protection for children and adolescents, for example (para. 597-604), largely treats children as a universal category, undifferentiated by gender. The IACtHR merely mentions that gender is a relevant factor in the perception of impact with respect to the intersection of vulnerabilities, noting that girls and female adolescents are more vulnerable to climate impacts, deepening existing inequalities (para. 598, see here and here).
LGBTIQ+ and Gender-Diverse Communities
Significantly, the IACtHR recognizes the heightened vulnerability of gender diverse persons during and after climate-induced disasters, who face a greater risk of gender-based violence due to stigmatisation and discrimination (para. 618). In discussing the need for adaptation measures, the IACtHR underscores that when evaluating climate impacts, vulnerability, and risk, States must rely on exhaustive data and identify the rights and groups of people that are particularly vulnerable, including women, girls, and the LGBTIQ+ community (para. 389). However, the Court does not provide further detail on the differentiated impacts suffered by this community in the context of the climate crisis, nor does it specify what kind of data supports adaptation plans. This is particularly important since data collection regarding impacts on LGBTIQ+ and gender-diverse communities in the aftermath of disasters is often overlooked and neglected (see here).
Women Environmental Defenders
The opinion also addresses the situation of women environmental defenders (para. 571-572), affirming that States must take special measures to protect them from threats, violence, and reprisals (para. 566). The Court calls attention to the gendered nature of violence and persecution faced by these defenders and links their protection to the obligations under both the American Convention and the Escazú Agreement (para. 564).
The IACtHR identifies State obligations relating to women, girls, and gender-diverse communities
The IACtHR finds that States have heightened and specific obligations to ensure the substantive and procedural rights of those whose intersecting identities make them more vulnerable to discrimination and harm, including their gender identities. Most of these obligations are overly general and normatively thin; where they are more detailed, they relate to gathering information that is gender-representative and sensitive, including the duty to consult and involve women meaningfully in climate decision-making, and guarantee access to justice and effective remedies for gender-differentiated harms.
The IACtHR expands on the content of the right to access to information, which imposes on states the obligation to establish systems and mechanisms to produce, compile, analyse, and disseminate information relevant to the protection of human rights in the context of the climate emergency (para. 505). According to the IACtHR, states must: (1) collect data (in relation to environmental impact assessments) on the effects of climate change on vulnerable individuals and groups, including the dimensions of gender (para. 496), (2) have a system of indicators to measure progress in implementing state strategies to move towards sustainable development that includes statistics on gender, among other factors that cause and deepen inequality in the context of the climate emergency (para. 508), and (3) collect, systematize, produce and analyze information on current and projected impacts of climate change (in the context of adaptation and disaster risk management) on people’s lives, personal integrity and health, considering gender (para. 512).
With respect to environmental and human rights defenders, the IACtHR notes that States must collect and keep updated data on killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture, and other harmful acts against environmental defenders, considering gender as a relevant and differentiating factor (para. 575). The IACtHR underscores that women defenders are faced with gender stereotypes that aim to delegitimize their work (para. 572). Furthermore, the IACtHR highlights the specific risks that women face due to the intersection of multiple axes of oppression (para. 572). Hence, the Court calls on States to include domestic mechanisms specifically designed to protect women defenders, as well as rural, Afro-descendant, and Indigenous women (para. 577).
Regarding gender-diverse individuals, the IACtHR identifies specific obligations, but these are primarily concerned with health and disaster response. The Court finds that States have an obligation to: “(i) ensure that LGBTIQ+ persons have access to health care free from discrimination by ensuring that health care personnel in these situations have the necessary diversity and inclusion training; and (ii) encourage the creation of safe spaces to prevent and effectively address any acts of discrimination and harassment of LGBTIQ+ persons in temporary shelters. Similarly, States have an obligation to ensure that health care provided to LGBTIQ+ persons during and after climate change-induced disasters is available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality.” (para 618).
With respect to Indigenous and tribal communities, the IACtHR discusses the obligations to adopt a series of progressive measures to design and implement studies, registers, and statistical reports to obtain data on the impacts of climate change on access to their territories and means necessary to their subsistence, noting that they should include intersectional factors related to “gender, age, and disability self-identification.” (para. 606). The IACtHR recognizes explicitly the role of Indigenous women in the preservation and transmission of traditional knowledge, including their contributions to maintaining cultural identity, mitigating the risks and effects of climate change, protecting biodiversity, achieving sustainable development, and building resilience to extreme events.
Furthermore, the IACtHR stipulates that States must design and implement mitigation, adaptation, and reparation measures that are gender-responsive, ensuring that climate action promotes gender equality and does not reinforce structural discrimination.
In sum, the IACtHR establishes that the climate crisis is a gendered human rights issue and that States have affirmative duties to integrate gender equality into their climate responses, protect women’s rights, and remedy climate-related harms experienced by women and girls. It underscores that a gender and intersectional perspective should inform all actions undertaken in the context of the climate emergency (para. 614).
However, while these acknowledgments are important symbolically and represent a step forward compared to previous jurisprudence, the IACtHR’s treatment of gender remains overly general and normatively thin. The language used is wide-ranging and aspirational, but it lacks concrete guidance on what the affirmative duties involve in practice. For instance, AO-32/25 does not clarify the legal consequences for States that fail to adopt a gender-transformative climate policy, nor does it outline concrete steps for ensuring gender-responsive adaptation, mitigation, or access to remedies. The reference to intersectionality is notable, but the Court stops short of explaining how overlapping identities—such as indigeneity, poverty, or displacement—should shape legal obligations or institutional reforms.
Ultimately, while the IACtHR affirms the need for a gender perspective, its reasoning falls short of establishing meaningful obligations that would help translate that recognition into enforceable protections. In this respect, AO-32/25 marks progress, but not transformation—a symbolic step in the right direction, but one that leaves much of the substantive work to future litigation or state interpretation.
Reading AO-32/25 after the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinions on Gender and Diversity
To fully appreciate the significance of AO-32/25 on gender issues, it should be read in conjunction with the IACtHR’s prior advisory opinions on gender identity, equality, and diversity. Unlike other international courts, the IACtHR has developed a relatively rich and evolving approach to gender, notably through Advisory Opinion 24/17 (AO-24/17), which recognized gender identity and same-sex relationships as protected under the American Convention (see here). When these opinions are read together, a more nuanced understanding of gendered state obligations in the context of climate change emerges—one that goes beyond vulnerability tropes to acknowledge intersectionality, agency, and structural inequality.
AO-24/17 was, in critical respects, quite narrow. In relation to gender-diverse persons and transgender rights, the advisory opinion focused primarily on state obligations to recognise and facilitate name changes in accordance with gender identity. However, despite the fairly narrow scope of the questions posed by Costa Rica in requesting the opinion, the IACtHR recognised the broad discrimination and oppression that gender diverse and LGBTIQ+ persons face, and the fact that this discrimination is often State-mandated and specifically provided for in law. It also recognised that transgender persons face constraints and rights violations across every aspect of their lives, including in accessing housing, employment, health care, and contractual obligations, among others. Given this, in AO-24/17, the IACtHR emphasized the importance of identity recognition, including through enabling name change and other formal dimensions of recognition, as a crucial first step towards realizing the full human rights of trans and gender-diverse persons.
Whereas in AO-24/17 the IACtHR recognized that gender and gender-based discrimination permeate all aspects of an individual’s life—including family, education, work, health, political participation, and personal autonomy—the discussion of gender in AO-32/25 is noticeably narrower in scope and ambition. Although the IACtHR affirms that the climate crisis has differentiated impacts on women and girls and acknowledges the need for a gender and intersectional lens (para. 614), its analysis is largely confined to the domains of health and disaster response. This represents a significant contraction from the broader framing in AO-24/17, where gender was treated as a structural axis of inequality with far-reaching implications.
Moreover, while AO-32/25 does mention LGBTIQ+ persons, it does so primarily within the context of access to healthcare and vulnerability during emergencies (paras. 317, 616), without elaborating on the multiple and intersecting forms of exclusion they may face in areas such as housing, land rights, employment, or access to justice—domains where climate impacts are also acutely felt. As such, the IACtHR seems to adopt a binary approach to gender, except for a couple of paragraphs that mention the LGBTIQ+ and gender-diverse communities. A more holistic application of the reasoning from AO-24/17 would have required the IACtHR to engage more deeply with how climate change exacerbates existing gender-based inequalities across social, economic, and political spheres.
For instance, AO-32/25 could have addressed how climate-induced displacement disrupts education for girls, increases risks of gender-based violence, or undermines women’s rights to land, property, and participation in decision-making. By limiting its gender analysis to only a few sectors, the Court missed an opportunity to build on its prior jurisprudence and to articulate a truly comprehensive gender-responsive framework for climate governance.
Conclusion
The IACtHR’s AO-32/25 is groundbreaking. Acknowledging the gendered dimensions of the climate crisis is a crucial step in recognizing the differentiated ways in which climate change affects people and closing the gender gap. Notably, the intersectional approach adopted by the IACtHR sheds light on the particular adverse climate impacts experienced by certain groups and individuals, an aspect that has been largely ignored in the broader scheme of climate litigation. However, while AO-32/25 presents a more meaningful engagement with gender and its relation to climate change than, for example, the ECtHR in KlimaSeniorinnen, it still falls short when addressing gender beyond women and girls. Given the IACtHR’s previous treatment of gender-diverse peoples’ rights, this feels like a missed opportunity to expand further and critically assess the gendered impacts of climate change in the region.
Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre is the Director of Global Climate Litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
Dina Lupin
Dina Lupin is a lecturer at the University of Southampton Law School in the United Kingdom.
Great Job Maria Antonia Tigre, Dina Lupin and Natalia Urzola & the Team @ Climate Law Blog Source link for sharing this story.
