February 29, 2024
San Jose, Costa Rica — The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has formally announced two public hearings regarding their forthcoming Advisory Opinion on State obligations related to the climate emergency and human rights.
The hearings, which will be held in Bridgetown, Barbados (April 23-25), and in Brasilia and Manaus, Brazil (May 24 and 27-29), provide a historic opportunity for the Court and the world to hear directly from communities and witness first-hand the impacts and risks posed by climate change and the corporate conduct driving it in two of the region’s most threatened geographies.
Ahead of the historic public hearings, legal experts urged the Court to focus on legal duties to halt industry-driven climate destruction.
In anticipation of the upcoming Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court, legal experts underscore its potential to set a significant precedent. Given the Court’s prominence in human rights and environmental matters, as well as the strategic timing of the Opinion, it is poised to have far-reaching implications. It is anticipated that the Opinion will wield considerable influence over the determinations made by other courts and legal entities regarding the well-established intersection of climate change and human rights.
The Court is one of three international tribunals that have been asked to clarify, for the first time, the legal duties of States in relation to climate change and its impacts on present and future generations.
As part of the groundbreaking Advisory Opinion process, Greenpeace International, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), and the New York University School of Law’s Climate Law Accelerator (CLX) submitted a joint amicus brief to the Court focused on corporate accountability for the climate crisis.
The brief outlines the physical and socio-political activities of the fossil fuel and agro-industries driving climate change and States’ human rights obligations to protect against and regulate these activities. It also details the duties of those business enterprises to respect human rights and refrain from such conduct, and the requirement for both States and businesses to remedy any harms and violations of human rights resulting from their actions.
The co-authoring organizations plan to participate in the hearings and facilitate the participation of affected communities to inform the Court of the perspectives and demands for justice of those most impacted by the accelerating climate crisis, present the robust body of scientific evidence regarding its causes and consequences, and highlight all relevant sources of international law that oblige States and business enterprises to act on the climate emergency.
The chosen locations of the hearings illustrate the impacts of the fossil fuel and agro-industries’ corporate conduct driving climate change. These impacts are far-reaching, from deforestation in the Amazon to climate-induced damage and dangers in the Caribbean.
The Advisory Opinion that the Court will issue on legal obligations under human rights law in relation to climate change is an important moment in the growing swell of climate justice litigation. The co-authoring organizations issued the following statements regarding the historic opportunity presented by these hearings:
Nikki Reisch, Director of the Climate & Energy Program at CIEL, said: “The Inter-American Court of Human Rights simply cannot answer the central question of States’ human rights duties in the context of climate change without addressing States’ obligations to rein in the corporations that are driving the crisis — chiefly fossil fuel and agroindustrial companies. Every day, the devastating human rights consequences of climate change are more apparent, in the Americas and around the world. The Court has an opportunity to make clear that States must act to eliminate the known causes of that devastation by ending reliance on fossil fuels; halting agroindustrial deforestation; and tackling the obstruction, deception, and delay tactics that allow such harmful conduct to continue.”
Maria Alejandra Serra, Legal Counsel Climate Specialist at Greenpeace International, said: “A safe climate is essential for the effective enjoyment of all human rights, particularly for those communities and individuals in already vulnerable situations. All over the world, those most impacted by the climate emergency and biodiversity crises are taking business enterprises to court, asserting their rights, and demanding justice for the harms they already experience. An Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming that business enterprises must respect human rights in the context of climate change would be crucial in the efforts to render greenhouse gas-intensive business enterprises and their enablers unable to abuse their power anymore, and to advance the effective protection of human rights in the region and in the rest of the world.”
Dr. Carly Phillips, Research Scientist with the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at UCS, said: “Before the Court is a robust body of scientific evidence identifying fossil fuel companies as the irrefutable, primary driver of climate change, and detailing the devastating impacts climate change has brought and will continue to inflict on communities across the Americas. As important legal decisions are made regarding the responsibility of both states and businesses to cease climate-destructive conduct, it’s critical that the data and research from countless scientists around the world is front and center. The lived experiences of communities across Latin America underscored by the scientific evidence paints a stark reality of climate change impacts. It’s essential that this evidence guides our pursuit of justice and accountability.”
Melina De Bona, Attorney at NYU Law’s Climate Law Accelerator, said: “We express optimism that the Court will address the enduring adverse impact of business enterprises on the climate emergency, encompassing their physical contributions to climate change and their sociopolitical endeavors to impede regulations, refute scientific evidence, mislead the public, and defer essential climate measures. Further, we are hopeful that the Court will leverage the robust frameworks of human rights and climate governance to elucidate the boundaries of the responsibilities held by both States and business enterprises. This includes their obligation to contribute their fair share of greenhouse gas emission reductions and adaptative measures, independent of the actions undertaken by other nations and corporate entities.”
Daniela Ikawa, Senior Strategic Litigation Office at OSJI, said: “In the Americas, corporate agroindustry is a significant driver of deforestation and land use changes that contribute to almost half of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions — with negative climate impacts on the rights and well-being of millions of people in the region and beyond. We are urging the Court to adopt an ambitious and expansive rights framework that will set a global standard by acknowledging these realities — and that will in turn enable national measures to combat deforestation by agroindustry, such as stronger regulation, increased corporate disclosure, and steps to protect directly affected communities.”
Press contacts:
CIEL: Niccolo Sarno, press@ciel.org, + 41 (0) 22 506 80 37
Greenpeace International: +31 (0) 20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org
UCS: sdesilva@ucsusa.org