A Groundbreaking Ruling for Climate-Displaced Communities: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of Climate Justice

This article is originally published by the Global Strategic Litigation Council at: A Groundbreaking Ruling for Climate-Displaced Communities: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of Climate Justice

Author: Camilla Cockerill, Barrister at 4 New Square Chambers

On 3 July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights made history with a climate opinion that will shape the future of human rights-based climate action.

The Opinion has groundbreaking implications for states’ obligations to individuals who are displaced internally and across international borders by the effects of climate change.

Overview

In April 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the “Court”) held two historic hearings in Brazil and Barbados on the scope of states’ human rights obligations in the context of climate change. The Court was asked to provide guidance on the measures states should adopt to ensure their compliance with international human rights and environmental law.

The Court heard submissions from over 100 representatives from NGOs and individuals who had been directly affected by climate change, in what has been the most participatory Advisory Opinion in the history of the Court.

On 3 July 2025, the Court handed down its historic Advisory Opinion. For the first time, it provides authoritative guidance on the nature and scope of states’ human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency and reflects key aspects of the submissions made by the Global Strategic Litigation Council (the “Council”) on behalf of a coalition of Caribbean civil society organisation (the “Intervenors” – listed below*).

The Council’s Submissions in the Proceedings

The Council made written and oral submissions on behalf of the Intervenors, supported by the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights and NYC Global Justice Clinic to ensure representation for Caribbean climate justice and migration organisations at the Court. Their perspective is crucial given that the Caribbean region is one of the most vulnerable areas on the planet in terms of predicted adverse effects of climate change.

The amicus team was composed of counsel and academic experts including: Wendy Miles KC, Ali Al-Karim, Dr Markus Gehring, Nina Pindham, Odette Chalaby, Antonia Eklund and Camilla Cockerill, Nour Nicolas, Caroline Mair-Toby, Fietta LLP, Dr Shobha Maharaj and Maria Giovanna Jumper. Ali Al-Karim appeared on behalf of the Intervenors at the hearing in Manaus.

The Intervenors’ submissions focussed on question F.3 of the Request, which invites the Court to rule on states’ obligations to deal with “involuntary human mobility, exacerbated by the climate emergency.”

Key Findings

The Court made the following findings of relevance to the issue of cross border displacement precipitated by climate change:

Recognition of the Extreme Vulnerability of Caribbean Island States

• First, the Court recognised that the Caribbean is one of the most vulnerable areas on the planet to the adverse effects of climate change. It noted that small low lying island states are confronted by extreme weather events, coastal erosion and rising sea levels. The Court acknowledged that one of the most pressing challenges faced by these Caribbean island states is forced migration precipitated by extreme weather events.

Recognition of Climate Change as a Driver of Displacement

• Second, the Court recognised that climate change is both a direct and indirect cause of forced migration and displacement. It acknowledged that there may sometimes be ambiguity between migration and displacement but affirmed that many cross-border movements are involuntary and directly attributable to climate-related harms.

States’ Obligations to Prevent Displacement in Recognition of the Right of People to Remain

• Third, the Court held that States must adopt enhanced due diligence measures to prevent climate-induced displacement, integrating climate adaptation into development and disaster risk reduction plans. This includes protection of livelihoods, food and water security, and adequate housing. Crucially, at paragraph 414, the Court added to a growing body of jurisprudence that explicitly recognises the right of people to remain in the context of climate change. Often with migration, the focus is on those who are forced to leave, but as was the case with many of the organisations that the Council represented, many are fighting for their rights to stay on their lands and in their homes.

Legal Protection of Displaced Persons

• Fourth, the Court held that States must establish domestic legal frameworks to ensure protection for those displaced across borders due to climate change, including mechanisms such as humanitarian visas, temporary protection, or residence permits. That protection must comply with international human rights law. The Court held that any measures related to relocation, protection, or return must respect due process rights, including access to legal remedies and participation in decision-making.

Human Rights at the Core

• Fifth, the Court held that displaced persons must have their fundamental rights respected, including the right to life, dignity, health, family unity, housing, education, and property. Special protection should be afforded to vulnerable groups, particularly women, children, and indigenous communities.

Protection During and After Displacement

• Sixth, the Court held that States must ensure safe, dignified relocation when return is not feasible, including restoration of land and property rights, and access to essential services at resettlement sites. Long-term solutions should be pursued beyond temporary protection.

International Cooperation

• Seventh, the Court stressed that addressing cross-border climate displacement requires regional and international cooperation, based on solidarity, equity, and shared but differentiated responsibilities. The Opinion explicitly frames international cooperation not as a political preference, but as a legal obligation under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Protocol of San Salvador. Specifically, States must support each other through technical assistance, capacity-building, and information sharing. There is a duty to collaborate on migration governance, including offering protection pathways (e.g., temporary visas) for displaced persons. This language elevates cooperation from diplomatic rhetoric to an enforceable standard of conduct.

Supporting Climate Justice and Equity

• Eighth, the Court acknowledges the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, recognizing that many vulnerable countries and communities, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, are disproportionately affected by climate impacts despite having contributed little to the problem. International cooperation, in this context, must reflect equity, solidarity and historical responsibility. This resonates with the demands of the Global South and reinforces climate justice as a norm in international law.

Impact and Significance

This Opinion is a critical development that advances legal clarity in respect of climate mobility and the rights of displaced persons in the Americas and beyond. It underscores the right to a stable climate and the duty of nations to protect this, as well as the duty to cooperate to respond to internal and cross border displacement precipitated by climate change.

By positioning climate-induced displacement and cooperation within a binding human rights framework, the Court’s Opinion:

• Strengthens the basis for litigation and advocacy across the region, including before domestic courts that are party to the Convention, and international courts.
• Is likely to bolster climate negotiations ahead of COP30 (indeed, the Court explicitly states that the Opinion is intended to encourage such negotiations).
• Will increase the reputational, diplomatic and legal pressure on high-polluting states who are not parties to the Convention by: (i) adding legal and moral weight to global demands that high-emitting countries (like the US) cut emissions; (ii) serving as potentially persuasive (albeit not binding) authority in courts of those jurisdictions; and (iii) potentially increasing liability risks for foreign fossil fuel companies operating in Latin America or the Caribbean.
• Offers legal guidance for other regions (e.g., African and European human rights systems).
• Contributes to the growing corpus juris recognizing the right to a healthy environment and the rights of displaced persons, including a right to remain.

The broader significance of the Opinion is its clear message that no state can face the climate crisis alone, and that protecting displaced persons requires transnational solidarity grounded in human rights law—not just humanitarian goodwill.

It marks a shift from reactive to preventive, coordinated and rights-based governance of climate mobility, setting a compelling precedent for other international and regional legal bodies.

The Court’s opinion also builds significantly on the findings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) in its 2024 Advisory Opinion on States’ obligations to address climate change under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). It is hoped that the Court’s approach will be further complemented and reinforced by the pending advisory opinions before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which will also consider States’ obligations in the context of climate change under international law.

Following the ruling, the Court’s President Judge Nancy Hernández López emphasized the fundamental importance of cooperation between nations, noting that:

causing massive and irreversible environmental harm…alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions… Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses.

If you want to know more about how this judgement might affect your work, or you have a pending case on climate displacement that you would like the Council’s support with, visit our ‘get support’ page to request support and a member of our team will be in touch.

*Intervenors

We have had the privilege of working with the following organisations and individuals to intervene in this case:

• Sosyete Kiltirèl Jen Ayisyen (SOKIJA)
• Caribbean Centre for Human Rights (CCHR)
• Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)
• Centro Montalvo
• Colette Lespinasse
• The Cropper Foundation
• Foyer Maurice Sixto (FMS)
• Fundación Cónclave Investigativo de las Ciencias Jurídicas Y Sociales (CIJYS)
• The Global Justice Clinic of NYU School of Law which includes the Caribbean Climate Justice Initiative
• Haitian Immigrant Rights Project and Haiti Justice and International Accountability
• Institut Interuniversitaire de Recherche et de Développement (INURED)
• Komisyon Episkopal Nasyonal Jistis ak Lapè (CE-JILAP)