On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) delivered a historic advisory opinion regarding States’ obligations in relation to the climate crisis (AO-32/25). The IACtHR was particularly articulate in qualifying States’ obligations under the right to a healthy environment as having a jus cogens nature (paras. 287ff), and in deriving from it a right to a healthy climate (para. 302), where an individual or collective violation would imply the international responsibility of States and their obligation to provide full reparation for the harm caused (para. 303). Yet, references to reparations in AO-32/25 are not limited to the context of international responsibility. The IACtHR clarified States’ obligations to ensure access to justice, provide domestic remedies, and repair individual and collective harm caused by climate change (paras. 556ff). This blog post examines three aspects of the discussion of remedies and reparations in AO-32/25: (1) the substantive duties to provide remedies and reparations, (2) how these duties build on the IACtHR’s jurisprudence on reparations, and (3) the IACtHR’s limited stance on loss and damage.
A Comprehensive Understanding of Reparations
The discussion of reparations in AO-32/25 covered both international and domestic requirements. First, it addresses the obligation of States to provide reparations for harm related to climate change when there is a violation of the right to a healthy climate or any other human right protected under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Second, it emphasizes the obligation of States to establish adequate mechanisms at the domestic level to ensure access to justice and reparations for harm caused by climate change. This recognition of both international and domestic remedies is important. While the ACHR assigns obligations solely to States—meaning only States can be held responsible for repairing harm caused by their actions or omissions—at the domestic level, private business operators also bear responsibilities not to harm human rights, and they can be held liable in domestic courts to repair the harm they inflict on the climate system. Considering that private operators are major greenhouse gas emitters and that access to supranational courts is burdensome for direct victims, providing domestic remedies is crucial to ensuring that those who are affected by climate change can obtain some form of reparation.
The IACtHR suggests that responsibility for climate change lies not only with States, but also with private operators. In the section on corporate responsibility, the IACtHR notes that certain companies bear heightened responsibilities due to the risks associated with their activities. This observation could have provided a foundation for further engagement with corporate accountability in the context of loss and damage (para. 350). However, the IACtHR did not further elaborate on how private business operators should be held accountable for climate change-related harm, representing a significant gap in an otherwise ambitious and far-reaching advisory opinion.
Obligation to Provide Remedies and Reparations: Substantive Duties
The IACtHR concludes that, where prevention of the adverse effects of climate change is not possible or has failed, States are required to adopt remedial measures consistent with the principle of full reparation in human rights law (para. 557). States also bear the obligation to provide effective mechanisms that enable victims to access full and effective reparation for the harm incurred by victims of climate change-related events, particularly vulnerable groups and communities (para. 557).
The IACtHR emphasizes that effective remedies in the context of the climate emergency must go beyond monetary compensation in order to ensure full reparation for affected individuals, communities, and ecosystems. Drawing on its established jurisprudence under Article 25 of the ACHR and Article XVIII of the American Declaration, the IACtHR stresses that remedies must be appropriate to the nature of the harm and tailored to climate-specific impacts (para. 556–557). These include (i) restitution measures such as ecosystem restoration and increased mitigation (para. 558(i)); (ii) rehabilitation measures addressing health impacts with culturally appropriate care (para. 558(ii)); (iii) compensation grounded in sound methodologies for climate-related losses (para. 558(iii)); and (iv) guarantees of non-repetition, including efforts to reduce structural vulnerability and strengthen resilience (para. 558(iv)).
Importantly, the IACtHR urges domestic and international courts and authorities not to limit remedies to financial redress alone but to consider monitoring and follow-up mechanisms where necessary (para. 559). These standards must be guided by the best available science and uphold both substantive and procedural rights throughout the remedy process (para. 559).
On this matter, the IACtHR also says that reparation should seek to compensate for harm produced to Nature more directly, i.e. irrespective of a human impact of such harm (para. 557). This follows directly from the IACtHR’s view that “the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, seas and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons” (para. 273). It is also a result of singling out the rights of Nature as a new category of rights protected pursuant to Article 29 of the ACHR (para. 279ff). Reparation of the harm produced to these natural components, including the climate system, is thus autonomous and in addition to the reparation to the affected individuals and communities.
However, while AO-32/25 includes an extensive list of available forms of reparation, the IACtHR falls short of advancing innovative remedial frameworks tailored to the scale and systemic nature of the climate crisis. AO-32/25 does not grapple with the persistent inadequacy of current domestic and international remedies, particularly in cases involving diffuse harms, loss of biodiversity, or the slow-onset impacts of climate change. This absence may limit the AO-32/25’s transformative potential, especially for communities whose losses defy traditional legal redress.
Notably, the IACtHR missed an opportunity to deepen its reasoning on remedies in the context of transboundary harm and North–South climate injustice. Although it reaffirmed that standing must be available to those outside the respondent State’s territory given the transboundary effects of climate change (para. 551), it did not elaborate on how reparations might function when harms cross borders or disproportionately affect countries in the Global South. This gap is particularly striking given the IACtHR’s prior engagement with extraterritorial obligations and cross-border environmental harm in AO-23/17 (see here). A more robust articulation of how international cooperation, differentiated responsibilities, and climate finance obligations relate to reparations could have significantly enhanced the IACtHR’s contribution to global climate justice.
IACtHR’s Trailblazing Jurisprudence on Reparations Applied to the Climate Change Context
Mitigation and adaptation have dominated climate policy discourse; yet, reparation remains the most underdeveloped and arguably the most urgent pillar of climate justice. For frontline communities facing rising seas, heatwaves, drought, and displacement, the damage has already occurred. The next frontier of climate justice is not how to prevent climate harm, but how to provide reparative justice when it occurs.
While loss and damage have gained traction in international negotiations, legal frameworks for reparation in the human rights context remain underdeveloped. Yet, human rights law, and in particular the IACtHR, are uniquely positioned to address this gap. The IACtHR is empowered to adjudicate violations of binding legal obligations, grounded in the rights of individuals and communities. In its rich jurisprudence, the IACtHR has developed one of the most sophisticated reparation regimes among international courts (see here and here), developing the notions of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Applying these principles to climate-related harms offers a much-needed framework for redress, especially for communities that have contributed the least to climate change but are disproportionately affected by it. It also encourages States, particularly those with high emissions, to move beyond symbolic gestures and face concrete remedial obligations.
In AO-32/25, the IACtHR acknowledges the obligations of States to provide effective (judicial and administrative) mechanisms to access full reparation. The IACtHR expressly notes the need to provide restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition measures (paras. 556-558). In line with its jurisprudence regarding reparations, it urges States, as well as international and domestic authorities, to consider the need not to limit reparations to purely monetary compensation. It notes that climate-related harms often extend beyond material damage and highlights non-economic harms—such as the loss of cultural identity, displacement, and impacts on Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples—as central to understanding the human rights dimensions of climate-related harms (see para. 450). The IACtHR further states that all reparation measures should “be based on the best available science and knowledge”, and must be designed and implemented in a manner that fully guarantees the substantive and procedural rights of the individuals and communities involved (para. 559).
AO-32/25 also reiterates the importance of participation and procedural guarantees in the design and implementation of reparation measures. This includes ensuring access to environmental and climate justice through judicial and administrative mechanisms, and specifically recognizing the right of affected individuals to be consulted and involved in the development and implementation of remedies. The IACtHR stresses that reparations in the climate context should not only redress past harms but also support climate resilience and adaptive capacity, thereby contributing to long-term human rights protection. For Indigenous peoples displaced by climate disasters, access to lands of similar quality and legal status, or compensation in cash or in kind, must be provided as part of full reparation (para. 427).
Finally, the IACtHR links the duty to provide reparations with international cooperation and solidarity, noting that States must work together to mobilize resources, share knowledge, and strengthen institutional frameworks that enable effective remedies, especially for communities in vulnerable situations and for harms that transcend borders. This holistic view affirms that reparations in the climate context are not only a matter of legal accountability but also a pathway toward restorative justice and sustainable development.
Loss and Damage: A Notable Absence in a Comprehensive Framework
In underscoring the severity of climate impacts, the IACtHR emphasizes that even full compliance with the temperature limits set by the Paris Agreement would be insufficient to prevent adverse effects on human rights (para. 198). It therefore stresses the need for “effective responsive mechanisms” to provide redress for the consequences of climate change (para. 198). Among such mechanisms, the IACtHR highlights the loss and damage framework established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, including the newly created Loss and Damage Fund (L&DF) (paras. 199–200). While acknowledging that it is too early to assess the L&DF’s implementation, the IACtHR notes that fulfilling its mandate will require “extraordinarily high resources” (para. 201). Crucially, the IACtHR clarifies that the design and implementation of the L&DF is not aimed at ensuring full reparation for harms attributable to States arising from violations of obligations under the Paris Agreement and related commitments (para. 202). Nor is the L&DF intended to equitably allocate climate-related financial responsibilities in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).
Despite the AO-32/25’s extensive articulation of rights and obligations related to mitigation and adaptation, the issue of loss and damage receives only limited attention. While the IACtHR acknowledges the need for effective redress mechanisms and recognizes the relevance of the UNFCCC’s framework and the L&DF, it stops short of fully engaging with the legal implications of State responsibility for harms that exceed the limits of adaptation. This is particularly notable given that a recurring theme in discussions on loss and damage centers on whether human rights violations are an adverse effect of climate change for the purpose of the L&DF. The IACtHR cannot provide an authoritative interpretation of the rules governing the L&DF; however, the reference to the operation of the Fund suggests that it interprets the rules as including the human rights impact as well.
Concluding Observations
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. Understandably, the IACtHR focused its analysis of remedies on its rich and detailed reparations jurisprudence. Yet, despite its strengths, the opinion falls short in confronting the gaps in redress for loss and damage. Climate justice must go beyond a rhetorical ideal, and future efforts must build on the Opinion’s foundation to close the remediation gap and provide for inclusive, effective reparation to those affected by the climate crisis. AO-32/25 sets us on a clear path forward, and now it is up to States, institutions, and individuals to build on and carry it further.
Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre is the Director of Global Climate Litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
Miriam Cohen
Miriam Cohen is an Associate Professor and holds the Canada Research Chair on Human Rights and International Reparative Justice at University of Montreal’s Faculty of Law.
Great Job Armando Rocha, Maria Antonia Tigre and Miriam Cohen & the Team @ Climate Law Blog Source link for sharing this story.
