For information on UN human rights treaties containing rights and principles related to climate change, see States’ Human Rights Obligations in the Context of Climate Change: Guidance Provided by the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (Center for International Environmental Law & The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).
Spotlight: Human Rights Dimensions of Climate Change and Environmental Matters
Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement)
The Escazú Agreement aims to combat inequality and discrimination and to guarantee the rights of every person to a healthy environment and to sustainable development. It is a legally binding agreement stemming from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the region’s first treaty on environmental matters, and the world’s first to include provisions on human rights defenders in environmental matters.
Small Island States Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Climate Change, Male’ Declaration on the Human Dimension of Global Climate Change
The Male' Declaration was the first intergovernmental statement explicitly recognizing that climate change has clear and immediate implications for the full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, to an adequate standard of living, to food, to use and enjoy property, and to the highest attainable standard of health.
Human Rights and Climate Change-related Cases
Spotlights
International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion: Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. The Court ruled that states have obligations to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and can incur legal responsibility for breaching these obligations. The Court’s justification for the ruling is grounded in part in international human rights law, noting that “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” and that states are required to guarantee enjoyment of these internationally protected rights by addressing climate change.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion 32/25
In July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued Advisory Opinion No. 32, a landmark decision on the obligations of States in the face of the climate emergency. The opinion affirms that the right to a healthy climate is among the human rights protected under the American Convention on Human Rights. Among the most notable aspects of the opinion are (1) the specific obligations laid out for States related to the protection of environmental rights defenders; (2) the responsibility of States to regulate companies to prevent climate-related human rights harms; and (3) the direct recognition—for the first time by an international court—of a jus cogens norm* that States have a duty not to create irreversible harm to the climate.
*A jus cogens norm is a norm from which no derogation is possible.
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan
A farmer sued the Pakistani government for failing to carry out key climate change policies, arguing that its failure to meet its climate change adaptation targets had resulted in immediate impacts on Pakistan’s water, food, and energy security, threatening his fundamental right to life. An appellate court in Pakistan granted these claims, determining that the delayed implementation of climate policies offended the fundamental rights of Pakistani citizens. The decision also urged a focus on climate justice, which would link human rights with development, safeguard rights, and share “the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly.”
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
The Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental group, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government to require it to do more to prevent global climate change. Citing principles under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), among other standards, a Dutch district court ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions. This was the first decision by any court in the world ordering a state to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than a statutory mandate. The decision was upheld on appeal, with the Hague Court of Appeal determining that the Dutch government has an obligation under the ECHR to protect human rights, in this case the right to life and to private and family life, home, and correspondence, from the threat of climate change.
Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia
Several individuals living in the Torres Strait Islands, in Australia, brought a complaint against Australia before the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing that their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been violated as a result of Australia’s failure to adapt to climate change. The Committee found that Australia failed to adequately protect individuals in the Torres Strait Islands against the adverse consequences of climate change and violated their right to enjoy their culture and avoid arbitrary interference with their private life, family, and home. With this decision, the Committee created a pathway for individuals to assert human rights claims regarding the failure of domestic authorities to protect against the negative impacts of climate change.
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland
KlimaSeniorinnen (Senior Women for Climate Protection), a Swiss association of senior women, brought the Swiss government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), arguing that the country’s inadequate steps to mitigate climate change violated their human rights by putting their health and lives at risk. The ECtHR ruled that, by not doing enough to address climate change, the Swiss government had violated the human rights of its citizens, including the “right to respect for private and family life,” which the Court found to encompass a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change. This landmark case is the first in which an international court has ruled that governments are obliged under human rights law to meet their climate targets.
