CIVICUS speaks with Manuel Páez Ramírez, lawyer with the Human Rights and Environment Programme of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defence (AIDA), about the advisory opinion on climate emergency and human rights that Chile and Colombia have requested from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).
AIDA is Latin America’s only regional organisation of environmental legal experts that combines the use of law and science to seek sustainable solutions for the region.
Why have Chile and Colombia requested an IACtHR advisory opinion on climate change?
The current governments of Chile and Colombia promised their citizens a greater state commitment to guarantee human rights and to implement mitigation and adaptation policies in the face of the climate crisis. They turned to the regional court, the IACtHR, for guidance on their duties and obligations to protect the human rights of their populations in the face of the negative impacts of the global climate crisis. The Court’s advisory opinion will also serve as a guide for other states in the region that accept its jurisdiction.
It makes sense to go to a human rights court with a climate change issue because the enjoyment of human rights depends on an environment adequate for human life. People need a healthy environment and a stable and safe climate to fully exercise their freedom and their rights to health, education, housing and adequate food, among others.
What’s does an IACtHR advisory opinion mean?
IACtHR advisory opinions strengthen our understanding of human rights. They provide authoritative interpretations of the human rights treaties adopted by the region’s states and of the duties, authorisations and prohibitions derived from them. They serve as a legal benchmark for assessing the actions and omissions of states. They are a relevant element of judgment when establishing state responsibilities for potential violations.
The advisory opinion requested by Chile and Colombia will clarify the obligations of states in the face of the climate crisis. In the best-case scenario, it will determine with some precision what policies and programmes they must urgently undertake to avoid further losses and damages among their populations due to global warming or extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and hurricanes, which are becoming more frequent.
This advisory opinion could achieve profound changes if it contributes to further judicial rulings that oblige states to create or implement programmes for adaptation and mitigation of the impacts of the climate crisis. The Court’s opinion will strengthen the legal arguments for demanding such measures immediately as a way of protecting human rights.
What’s the process for obtaining an advisory opinion from the IACtHR?
Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San José, provides for the possibility for any Organization of American States (OAS) member and some of its bodies to consult the IACtHR on the way in which its clauses or those of ‘other treaties concerning the protection of human rights’ in the hemisphere should be interpreted. The purpose of advisory opinions is to interpret international treaties, specify their scope, determine the specific obligations they impose and develop the guarantees they offer to inhabitants of the continent.
According to the Court’s rules of procedure, the entity requesting an advisory opinion must formulate specific questions and explain the reasons for the request. Once a consultation is received, the Secretariat of the Court transmits it to all member states and to the bodies of the inter-American human rights system so they can submit their observations in written form. A period then starts for any interested person or entity to express their considerations on the questions raised and the manner in which they should be resolved. Subsequently, if it deems it appropriate, the Court convenes oral hearings to hear the states and intervening parties in the proceedings and, if necessary, to ask them questions and request clarifications on the written submissions. In the case presented by Chile and Colombia, hearings have taken place in Barbados and will continue in Brazil.
In the final phase, the Court deliberates in private and adopts a decision, which is then notified to all who participated in the proceedings. While there is no set date for the issuance of this opinion, it is expected that the Court will take around a year to issue it.
What role are AIDA and other civil society organisations playing in the process?
The role of civil society organisations such as AIDA comes through amicus curiae – ‘friend of the court’ briefs. According to the Court’s rules of procedure, this refers to ‘the person or institution who is unrelated to the case and to the proceeding and submits to the Court reasoned arguments on the facts contained in the presentation of the case or legal considerations on the subject-matter of the proceeding by means of a document or an argument presented at a hearing’.
Those regulations authorise the presentation of written submissions by those interested in the questions raised in the advisory opinion the Court has to answer. Individuals and institutions committed to the defence of human rights elaborate legal concepts or provide documentary input to contribute to the judicial debate and promote an adequate interpretation of the issue under study.
In this case, numerous civil society organisations, communities, experts and educational centres from all over the world have sent their observations to the IACtHR to raise their concerns and make suggestions on how to interpret states’ obligations in the face of the climate emergency from a human rights perspective.
The amicus curiae briefs submitted by organisations such as AIDA provide the Court with an overview of the socio-environmental repercussions of global warming on the continent, with an emphasis on Indigenous peoples, women, girls and LGBTQI+ people, as well as vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs. It provides testimonies and direct evidence of the damage caused, makes recommendations and offers legal arguments to demand effective and timely state action.
How is AIDA working to defend the environment and human rights?
AIDA is a regional organisation that combines the use of science and law to protect the environment and human rights. We use legal tools creatively and work together with the communities we support throughout the continent.
In addition to participating in processes such as the advisory opinion, we file individual petitions with the inter-American human rights system and complaints in international forums, for example with institutions that finance projects with significant climate impacts. We conduct climate litigation domestically and support local organisations in claiming their rights in national courts.
One judicial victory I would like to highlight is the recent IACtHR ruling in the case of La Oroya v. Peru. AIDA provided legal assistance to a community affected by contamination caused by decades of mining exploitation, which seriously affected people’s life, health and dignity. The ruling, which sets a precedent at the regional level, obliged the Peruvian state to repair the collective damage caused by state neglect in the area and take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of these socio-environmental crimes.
Get in touch with AIDA through its website or Facebook page, and follow @AIDAorg on Twitter.
