The escalating climate crisis is, fundamentally, a public health crisis. While headlines often focus on melting glaciers and rising sea levels, the immediate and growing threat to human well-being is often overlooked. A recent advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), issued in July 2025 as OC-32/25, doesn’t simply reiterate this connection – it legally defines the obligations of states in the Americas to protect the health of their populations in the face of climate change, and crucially, how they must do so. This isn’t merely a legal document; it’s a landmark articulation of how climate action must be grounded in both rigorous scientific understanding and the invaluable knowledge held by local, traditional, and Indigenous communities.
The IACtHR’s opinion arrived in response to requests from states within its jurisdiction, seeking clarification on how existing human rights – specifically the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment as enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights – translate into concrete duties regarding the climate emergency. It’s important to note that the Court didn’t invent new rights; rather, it clarified how existing rights demand a proactive response to a demonstrably worsening threat. While many reports detail the health impacts of climate change – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes climate change is already affecting both physical and mental health globally – OC-32/25 moves beyond observation to legal obligation. The latest Lancet Countdown report, for example, shows heat-related deaths have surged by 23 percent since the 1990s and dengue transmission potential has increased by up to 49 percent since the 1950s, but the Court’s opinion provides a framework for holding states accountable for mitigating these risks.
Drawn from petrieflom.law.harvard.edu.
The region covered by the Court – Latin America and the Caribbean – is particularly vulnerable. Despite contributing only around 4 percent of cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, the region is heavily reliant on extractive industries and expanding fossil fuel frontiers, while simultaneously facing some of the most severe climate impacts. This creates a stark paradox: a region bearing a disproportionate burden of a crisis it did little to create, and often hampered by fragile health systems already stretched thin. OC-32/25 directly addresses this inequity by outlining specific duties related to both mitigation – reducing emissions – and adaptation – preparing for and responding to the unavoidable consequences of climate change. For mitigation, the Court mandates binding emissions reduction targets, regulation of major emitters (both public and private), protection of carbon sinks, and mandatory climate impact assessments. The underlying logic is preventative: unchecked emissions directly exacerbate threats to life, personal integrity, and health.
However, the opinion’s most innovative aspect lies in its emphasis on the right to science and the recognition of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge. This isn’t simply about acknowledging different ways of knowing; it’s about recognizing that effective climate and health governance requires integrating both. The Court clarifies that states must ensure access to reliable climate science, support research, encourage public participation, and base policymaking on the best available evidence. Simultaneously, they must actively recognize, protect, and integrate local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, particularly when it strengthens health systems and improves risk response. This is a crucial step towards “epistemic justice,” addressing the historical marginalization of these knowledge systems in environmental and health governance. For instance, Arctic Inuit communities have been warning for decades about thinning sea ice and its impact on food security and mobility – knowledge that is vital for effective adaptation strategies.
This emphasis on knowledge systems also extends to data collection and communication. The Court stresses the need for states to generate disaggregated data, operate effective early-warning systems, and actively counter climate-related disinformation. Protecting health depends on timely and accurate information, and that information must be accessible and understandable to those most at risk. But the question remains: how can these obligations be realistically implemented in contexts where governments lack resources and the authority of international law is increasingly challenged?
The IACtHR’s opinion offers two potential pathways forward: transnational cooperation and strategic litigation. Partnerships between private actors, academic institutions, and Indigenous and local communities can refine our understanding of where and how policy interventions should be targeted. Existing initiatives like the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) demonstrate the power of international scientific collaboration in addressing public health challenges. Similar collaborations will be essential to tackle the health risks associated with climate change. Furthermore, the opinion opens the door for strategic litigation, allowing health concerns to be central to climate cases, potentially challenging government inaction when climate-driven disease outbreaks overwhelm unprepared health systems.
Looking ahead, the crucial question isn’t simply whether governments will acknowledge these obligations, but whether they will translate them into concrete policies and resource allocation. Will we see a shift in legal strategies, with health impacts becoming a central argument in climate litigation across the Americas? And, perhaps more importantly, will states genuinely prioritize the integration of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge into their climate adaptation and mitigation plans, moving beyond symbolic gestures to meaningful collaboration? The success of OC-32/25, and the protection of public health in a warming world, hinges on the answers.
