The Role of International Human Rights Law in Climate Reparations 

As the climate crisis accelerates, it has become increasingly clear that its consequences are not distributed equally. Marginalized and vulnerable communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, low-income nations, and small island states are disproportionately affected despite contributing the least to climate degradation. This disparity has spurred calls for climate reparations: a framework for redress and compensation for loss and damage caused by climate change. This blog post argues that international human rights law, grounded in principles of dignity, accountability, and justice, offers a critical yet underutilized legal foundation for advancing these claims. By examining core human rights instruments, relevant case law, and the limitations of existing legal mechanisms, the post explores how human rights principles can support climate reparations and proposes concrete reforms to strengthen accountability and ensure equitable redress for affected communities.

Human Rights Implicated in Climate Reparations

Climate change is not merely an environmental issue but a profound human rights challenge. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and deteriorating air quality threaten the enjoyment of basic rights protected under international human rights law. Core instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognize fundamental rights that are directly threatened by the climate crisis, including the right to life, the right to health, and the right to an adequate standard of living. 

As an example, the right to life, enshrined in Article 6 of the ICCPR, is directly threatened by climate-induced disasters such as floods, heatwaves, and famines, particularly in vulnerable regions. The right to health, protected under Article 12 of the ICESCR, is compromised by shifting disease patterns, air pollution, and reduced access to clean water resulting from climate change. Similarly, the right to an adequate standard of living, outlined in Article 11 of the ICESCR, encompasses access to food, water, housing, and a healthy environment, all of which are increasingly jeopardized by environmental degradation.

These rights provide the legal and moral foundation for demanding reparations for climate-related harm. Human rights advocates have increasingly invoked them to hold states accountable for       inadequate climate action. United Nations bodies, including the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), have affirmed the intrinsic connection between environmental degradation and human rights violations.

In particular, General Comment No. 36 (2018) of the UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes that states must take positive measures to protect individuals from life-threatening environmental harm. There is a growing international consensus that states have both negative obligations to refrain from policies and practices that cause environmental damage and positive obligations to proactively prevent foreseeable harm and protect at-risk populations. These principles underpin the argument that climate reparations are not only ethically necessary but also legally grounded in international human rights law.

Case Studies: Leveraging Human Rights to Advance Climate Justice 

The following case studies illustrate how human rights frameworks have been leveraged to advance climate justice, from the early recognition of climate-related harms to the establishment of legal obligations on both states and corporations. The cases are organized to reflect the evolution of legal reasoning in this area: starting with foundational acknowledgments of climate risks to life and displacement; moving through state responsibility for failing to prevent foreseeable harms; and culminating in decisions that expand accountability to private actors and enforce reparative justice, particularly for Indigenous and vulnerable communities. Together, the cases discussed here reflect a growing judicial consensus that climate inaction can constitute a violation of international human rights law.

Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand (UN Human Rights Committee, 2020)

In this landmark case, Ioane Teitiota, a national of Kiribati, sought asylum in New Zealand, arguing that rising sea levels and environmental degradation in Kiribati posed a direct threat to his and his family’s lives. While the UN Human Rights Committee upheld New Zealand’s decision to deport Teitiota, it recognized for the first time that climate change and environmental degradation could, under certain conditions, threaten the right to life and trigger non-refoulement obligations. This case established a legal precedent linking climate change to the right to life and signaled that states may eventually be barred from returning individuals to countries where environmental conditions pose life-threatening risks. It also underscored the need for clearer legal protections for climate-induced displacement.

Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its Members v. Honduras (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2015)

This decision affirmed the collective rights of the Garífuna people to their ancestral lands, cultural identity, and judicial protection. The Court found Honduras responsible for failing to demarcate and secure Garífuna territory, leading to encroachment, social fragmentation, and violence. Nearly a decade later, the state has not implemented the Court’s reparations order, revealing systemic gaps in enforcement. The ruling emphasized that secure land tenure is essential for cultural survival and environmental stewardship, and it highlighted the need for effective territorial reparations. It also exposed the consequences of state inaction in implementing judicial decisions, which perpetuates human rights violations and environmental degradation.

Torres Strait Islanders v. Australia (UN Human Rights Committee, 2022)

A group of Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders filed a complaint against Australia, alleging that the government’s failure to mitigate climate change and protect them from rising sea levels violated their rights under the ICCPR. The UN Human Rights Committee agreed, marking the first time an international human rights body held a state accountable for climate inaction affecting Indigenous peoples. The ruling recognized the state’s duty to prevent foreseeable climate harms, affirmed the cultural and territorial rights of Indigenous communities, and demonstrated the increasing potential of human rights mechanisms to provide remedies for climate-related injustices.

State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (Dutch Supreme Court, 2019)

In this landmark domestic case, the Urgenda Foundation successfully argued that the Dutch government’s inadequate climate policies violated its citizens’ rights to life and private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with international targets. This case affirmed that states have affirmative human rights obligations to prevent dangerous climate change, showcased the role of domestic courts in enforcing international norms, and served as a template for similar litigation globally.

Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell (The Hague District Court, 2021 and The Hague Court of Appeal, 2024)

In Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell, the Hague District Court in May 2021 held that Shell’s inadequate climate policies violated Dutch tort law and human rights obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, ordering the company to reduce its global CO₂ emissions, including Scope 1, 2, and 3, by 45 percent by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. This landmark ruling marked the first time a private corporation was legally mandated to align its operations with the Paris Agreement based on human rights principles, signaling a major expansion of corporate accountability in climate litigation. The case expanded the scope of accountability to include corporate actors and signaled the growing relevance of human rights norms in shaping private sector responsibilities. On appeal, however, the Hague Court of Appeal in November 2024 overturned the specific 45 percent reduction order while reaffirming that corporations have a human rights-based duty of care to mitigate climate change. The court held that climate change threatens fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, and family life, and confirmed that Dutch tort law incorporates this duty of care informed by the ECHR and the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, it found that imposing a fixed, global emissions target, particularly for downstream Scope 3 emissions, exceeded the court’s authority and risked ineffectiveness due to potential “carbon leakage.” While granting Shell discretion in how to meet its obligations, the decision affirmed that companies remain legally bound to adopt robust climate strategies consistent with their duty of care, leaving open the possibility of future litigation if their efforts prove inadequate and reinforcing the growing role of human rights norms in shaping private sector climate responsibility.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (European Court of Human Rights, 2024)

A group of senior Swiss women argued that the Swiss government’s failure to act on climate change violated their rights to life and private life under the ECHR. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in their favor, finding that Switzerland failed to meet its positive obligations to protect citizens from foreseeable climate-related health risks. This judgment confirmed that climate change is a justiciable human rights issue under the ECHR and strengthened the legitimacy of climate litigation before regional human rights courts. It also emphasized the responsibility of states to take preventative action to protect vulnerable populations.

International Jurisprudence on Climate Change and Human Rights 

In parallel with national and regional litigation, recent developments before international courts have further entrenched the recognition of climate change as a human rights issue. These advisory opinions issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mark a transformative moment in the evolution of global legal norms. Both opinions articulate, in complementary ways, how state obligations under international human rights and environmental law intersect to address the climate crisis and support claims for climate reparations.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (July 2025)

On July 3, 2025, the IACtHR issued its landmark Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, clarifying how states’ existing legal obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights apply in the context of the climate emergency. Requested by Chile and Colombia, the opinion represents a historic step in defining the intersection between human rights and climate change, offering the most comprehensive articulation to date of states’ duties to prevent, mitigate, and remedy climate-related harm. The Court declared a global “climate emergency” and emphasized that addressing it requires “urgent and effective actions, articulated with a human rights perspective and under the prism of resilience.”

The advisory proceedings were unprecedented in scope and inclusivity, with 263 briefs submitted and 185 delegations participating in public hearings across Barbados, Brazil, and Costa Rica. This broad participation reflected the engagement of civil society, Indigenous peoples, and affected communities across the Americas. The Court’s 234-page opinion reaffirmed that states bear obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights in the context of climate change, grounding its reasoning in the “human rights–environment nexus.” It recognized a “clear and demonstrable link of dependence” between a stable climate system and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, health, personal integrity, and non-discrimination.

Most notably, the IACtHR declared that the obligation to prevent irreversible harm to the environment and climate constitutes a jus cogens norm, a peremptory rule of international law from which no derogation is permitted. This recognition elevates climate protection to the same legal status as prohibitions against genocide, slavery, and torture, signaling a profound shift in international legal doctrine. The Court also recognized, for the first time, the human right to a healthy climate as an independent legal right, distinct from, but closely connected to, the right to a healthy environment previously recognized in its Advisory Opinion 23/17. This distinction provides a new legal avenue for individuals and communities to seek redress for climate-related harms without relying solely on generalized environmental claims.

The opinion further underscored states’ duties of cooperation, due diligence, and protection for vulnerable groups, emphasizing that climate change “creates extraordinary and increasingly serious risks to the human rights of populations whose vulnerabilities are compounded by intersecting forms of discrimination.” Indigenous peoples, low-income communities, women, and children were identified as bearing the greatest burdens of the climate crisis, necessitating targeted and participatory approaches to climate policy. The Court also advanced the groundbreaking recognition of nature as a rights-bearing entity, holding that ecosystems have intrinsic legal personality and must be protected as subjects of rights under the American Convention.

By articulating a unified framework for the protection of human and ecological systems, the IACtHR transformed climate action from a matter of political discretion into a legal and moral obligation. While advisory opinions are not formally binding, they hold substantial interpretive and normative authority for the 20 states that have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. The opinion is expected to shape national jurisprudence, inform regional climate legislation, and inspire future international litigation, solidifying the role of human rights as a cornerstone of climate reparations and global environmental governance.

International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change (July 2025)

On July 23, 2025, the ICJ issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on states’ obligations concerning climate change, a watershed moment in international environmental law and global climate accountability. The opinion, requested by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution A/77/L.58, was the culmination of a six-year campaign led by Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and championed by the government of Vanuatu. Jointly sponsored by 132 states from both developed and developing regions, the resolution sought legal clarity on the duties of states to protect the climate system and the corresponding consequences of failing to do so, particularly for small island developing states and future generations.

In its historic ruling, the ICJ unanimously affirmed the entirety of Vanuatu’s submissions, declaring climate change to be an “urgent and existential threat of planetary proportions.” The Court recognized that greenhouse gas emissions are “unequivocally caused by human activities” and confirmed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the most authoritative scientific body on climate impacts. Elevating the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target from an aspirational aim to a definitive legal benchmark, the ICJ held that states must exercise due diligence to ensure that their Nationally Determined Contributions, collectively, are sufficient to achieve that goal. This interpretation effectively transforms the 1.5°C threshold into a binding norm under both the Paris Agreement and general international law.

Rejecting arguments advanced by several high-emitting states that climate treaties form a self-contained lex specialis regime, the Court held that the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement do not exhaust the broader body of international law. Rather, the Court affirmed that the “entire corpus” of international law is directly relevant and applicable to the climate crisis. This includes the UN Charter, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, international human rights law, and customary principles such as sustainable development, equity, intergenerational equity, and the precautionary approach. The ICJ emphasized that climate treaties are complementary and mutually reinforcing, rejecting the notion of conflict among them and affirming that their provisions must be interpreted in harmony with wider international obligations.

Central to the opinion is the reaffirmation of states’ customary duty to prevent significant transboundary harm to the environment, extended here to the global climate system. This obligation, the Court stated, entails the exercise of due diligence, requiring states to adopt and implement reasonable measures commensurate with the severity of climate risk. The ICJ also reaffirmed the duty to cooperate as a core principle of the UN Charter and of environmental treaty law, noting that effective climate action demands shared responsibility and international solidarity.

The Court went further by explicitly recognizing the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a universally applicable norm of international law. It affirmed that environmental protection is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water, and housing. States, therefore, cannot fulfill their human rights obligations without concurrently protecting the environment and mitigating climate harm. In this respect, the ICJ aligned its reasoning with the growing global consensus reflected in United Nations resolutions, regional human rights jurisprudence, and over 100 national constitutions that enshrine this right.

Importantly, the Court held that states that fail to meet their climate obligations commit an internationally wrongful act. President Judge Yuji Iwasawa underscored that omissions, such as failing to regulate fossil fuel production or consumption, are attributable to the state and carry legal consequences under customary international law. Such breaches require cessation of the harmful conduct, guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparation to injured states, including restitution and compensation where a direct causal link is established. The opinion also confirmed that the Paris Agreement’s provisions on financial assistance, technology transfer, and capacity-building for vulnerable states constitute binding obligations, not discretionary commitments.

In a particularly significant passage, the ICJ addressed the existential challenges faced by small island developing states, affirming that loss of territory due to sea-level rise does not automatically extinguish statehood. Once recognized, a state continues to exist as a legal entity even if its landmass becomes uninhabitable, ensuring the continuity of sovereignty and rights under international law.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding under Article 59 of its Statute, they possess considerable persuasive and normative authority. Historically, such opinions have shaped the evolution of customary international law, guided domestic courts, and influenced treaty interpretation. 

The ICJ’s opinion thus marks a defining moment in the evolution of international climate law. It unifies states’ climate obligations across legal regimes, establishes a concrete legal benchmark for state conduct, and reinforces the inseparability of human rights and environmental protection. As the Court concluded, addressing climate change ultimately requires “human will and wisdom, to change our habits, comforts, and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those yet to come.”

Gaps in Current Legal Frameworks

Despite the recent jurisprudential advances represented by the IACtHR and ICJ advisory opinions, significant gaps persist within existing international frameworks governing climate accountability and reparations. Both opinions have affirmed that states bear binding obligations under international law to prevent and remedy environmental degradation that threatens human rights. However, their normative influence remains primarily interpretive rather than enforceable, leaving a wide gap between legal principle and state practice. 

One of the most pressing shortcomings is the absence of binding mechanisms to compel climate reparations. While both courts reaffirm the customary law duty to prevent significant environmental harm and to cooperate in mitigating its effects, neither establishes a concrete enforcement mechanism or financial framework for redress. International law recognizes the right to an effective remedy, yet there remains no binding obligation for states to compensate communities suffering loss and damage. This leaves efforts to remedy historical and ongoing environmental injustices dependent on political will rather than legal duty.

A second critical gap is the inadequate legal recognition of climate-induced displacement. The IACtHR highlighted the heightened vulnerability of Indigenous peoples and coastal communities, while the ICJ underscored that rising sea levels threaten the physical existence of Small Island States. Yet, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol do not encompass environmental factors as grounds for refugee status, rendering millions of displaced individuals legally invisible in the eyes of international protection regimes. Although these advisory opinions articulate moral and legal imperatives for protection, they stop short of expanding refugee definitions or creating enforceable pathways for people being displaced due to climate change. This exclusion is particularly concerning given the increasing number of people forced to flee their homes due to sea-level rise, desertification, and extreme weather events.

The emerging jurisprudence from domestic, regional, and international bodies also remains fragmented. The IACtHR and ICJ have taken complementary but distinct approaches: the former situates obligations within regional human rights systems and emphasizes reparations and Indigenous participation, while the latter articulates a universal framework grounded in general international law. This diversity of approaches, while normatively rich, also produces inconsistency in interpretation and application, impeding the emergence of a cohesive body of climate-related human rights law. 

Compounding these issues is the lack of standardized mechanisms for calculating and delivering reparations. There is no internationally agreed-upon methodology for assessing the scale or form of redress owed to affected communities. As a result, reparations processes are often ad hoc, opaque, and vulnerable to politicization. Without financial and technical guidelines, efforts to       promote climate justice risk being ineffective or tokenistic.

Together, these gaps underscore the urgent need for a coherent, binding, and enforceable international legal framework that translates the principles articulated by the IACtHR and ICJ into concrete mechanisms for accountability, redress, and protection. 

Proposed Reforms: Toward a Reparative Climate Justice Framework

To address the shortcomings in the current legal landscape and realize the potential of international human rights law in securing climate reparations, a series of structural and normative reforms are needed. Building on the normative advances of the ICJ and IACtHR, the next stage in the evolution of international climate law must focus on institutionalizing enforceable mechanisms of accountability and reparations. First, climate reparations should be explicitly integrated into existing human rights treaties or formalized through new legal instruments. The advisory opinions provide strong doctrinal support for this integration: both courts have recognized that environmental degradation directly undermines core human rights and triggers corresponding state obligations. Future amendments to foundational treaties such as the ICCPR and ICESCR could formally recognize climate-related harms as violations of protected rights. Alternatively, a dedicated climate protocol could be developed under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, establishing clear state obligations to prevent, remedy, and redress climate-related human rights violations.

Second, there is an urgent need for the establishment of a dedicated international adjudicatory body with jurisdiction over climate-related human rights claims. Such a tribunal could receive individual and collective complaints, issue binding decisions, and mandate reparations. Regular state reporting on climate obligations and human rights impacts should also be institutionalized to promote transparency and accountability. This would bridge the enforcement gap left by the advisory nature of the IACtHR and ICJ opinions.

Third, standardized global guidelines for climate reparations must be developed. These should define the scope of reparable harm and provide detailed methodologies for assessing financial compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition. The ICJ’s reaffirmation of states’ duty to provide “full reparation” under customary international law offers a legal foundation upon which such guidelines could be built. Establishing such a framework would ensure greater consistency, equity, and legitimacy in the provision of climate justice.

Fourth, legal recognition and protection of climate-induced displacement must be expanded. The IACtHR’s emphasis on safeguarding vulnerable groups and the ICJ’s affirmation of the continued statehood of small island nations both highlight the human costs of climate inaction. Reinterpreting existing refugee law to include environmental causes, or negotiating a new international framework addressing climate mobility, would operationalize the protective intent expressed in both opinions. 

Finally, any reparative framework must be grounded in the lived experiences of affected communities. The IACtHR’s consultative process, which involved Indigenous peoples and civil society actors, sets a powerful precedent for participatory justice. Reparations must be designed and implemented through inclusive processes that respect local knowledge, cultural traditions, and self-determination. Community-led initiatives should be prioritized, ensuring that affected populations are meaningfully included in the design, implementation, and monitoring of climate justice mechanisms. Participatory research, inclusive policymaking, and sustained financial support for grassroots actors are essential to ensure that reparations are both culturally appropriate and responsive to local needs. Collectively, these reforms would transform the normative foundations laid by the IACtHR and ICJ into an operational framework for global climate justice, anchored in enforceable human rights law and capable of delivering meaningful reparations to those most affected.

Conclusion: Advancing Accountability and Justice

The IACtHR and ICJ advisory opinions mark a turning point in the legal recognition of climate change as a human rights crisis. Together, they affirm that states have binding obligations under international law to prevent, mitigate, and remedy climate-related harm, grounding those duties in the principles of human dignity, equity, and intergenerational justice. Yet, they also reveal the limitations of the current international order: interpretive progress without enforcement remains insufficient to confront a crisis of this magnitude. Advancing accountability and justice therefore requires transforming the moral and legal imperatives articulated by these courts into binding commitments. Strengthening treaty law, creating adjudicatory mechanisms, and integrating reparations into human rights frameworks are essential next steps. So too is expanding legal protection for climate-displaced persons and ensuring that affected communities are active agents in shaping reparative processes. In this evolving landscape, international human rights law provides not only a vocabulary for articulating claims of climate justice, but also a foundation for constructing enforceable remedies. The IACtHR and ICJ opinions illuminate the path forward, one that envisions a reparative climate justice framework grounded in solidarity, accountability, and the right of all peoples to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.