The Inter-American Court’s climate Opinion requires States across Latin America and the Caribbean to apply the standards of the Escazú Agreement—even if they have not yet ratified the treaty.
In a Blog Post Published on 2 july, 2026 Luisa Gómez, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, explains that one year after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, the debate is no longer whether countries across Latin America and the Caribbean must protect environmental defenders. That question has already been answered. The Court confirmed that all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS)—to which the Advisory Opinion directly applies—must implement the highest standards of protection for those defending the environment.
To define those standards, the Court drew extensively on the Escazú Agreement, the first legally binding regional treaty promoting environmental democracy. In doing so, it reinforced the treaty’s significance, even in countries that have not yet ratified it, including Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The implication is clear: these States can no longer treat Escazú’s standards as external, optional, or irrelevant.….
The incorporation of Escazú’s standards into the Inter-American corpus juris marks an important step toward strengthening access rights and protections for environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.
But no Advisory Opinion changes reality on its own. These decisions generate change when they are used in litigation, legislative reform, public debate, and collective organizing to ensure that human rights standards addressing the climate crisis translate into concrete protections for those defending the environment.
Recently, in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, a significant development unfolded regarding criminal charges against environmental defenders protesting against mining activities. Public authorities, citing the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, requested the suspension of the prosecution. They argued that continuing with the charges would be unconstitutional and could criminalize social protest and environmental advocacy.
One year later, the true measure of the Advisory Opinion’s impact will not be found in its pages, but in how judges, legislators, communities, and environmental defenders use it to strengthen protections for both the environment and the people who defend it.
Click here to dive deeper into the practical uses of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 