IACtHR ‘s Climate Advisory Opinion-2025

A major Push towards Global Alignment of EU Regulations (CBAM &CSDDD)

– Dilraj Singh.

Introduction

“States must… enact legislation obliging companies to conduct human rights and climate change due diligence along the entire value chain.”
— Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency (OC-32/25), Paragraph 347.[1]

The term “entire” in the above quote from Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’s latest Advisory Opinion-2025 connotes that the responsibility of States is not merely determined by the place of end consumption of a product but also throughout the different jurisdictions it travels across its “entire value or supply chain”.

From an EU standpoint, it lends validity to the EU regulations such as CBAM and CSDDD which trace their applicability up to the origin of the supply chain, even if it lies in a non-EU State. [2]While the opinion is extensive and multifaceted, Paragraph 347 emerges as the preamble for Court’s views on EU regulations and their global alignment — a direct call to states to legislate mandatory corporate climate and human rights due diligence, disclosure of emissions, and value chain accountability.

This paragraph does not exist in isolation. Earlier in the opinion, the Court references European Union legislation (Para 151) and transnational supply chain emissions (Para 58), subtly situating due diligence and climate accountability within the realm of emerging global legal standards. Together, these paragraphs point toward a quiet but meaningful convergence in international law — one where environmental and human rights obligations are increasingly being framed as enforceable duties, not just policy aspirations.[3]

This article unpacks how these sections of the IACtHR opinion can pave a congenial platform for transnational climate regulation, including EU initiatives like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and what it might mean for Global South economies like India.

A Judicial Blueprint for Climate Due Diligence (Para 347)

In Paragraph 347, the IACtHR lays out a clear, actionable framework for states. It declares that countries must:

Encourage all companies — domiciled or operating in their jurisdiction — to take effective measures to address climate change and its human rights impacts;
Legislate mandatory climate and human rights due diligence across the entire value chain;
Require accessible GHG emissions disclosure throughout corporate supply chains;
Oblige companies to reduce those emissions and contribute to broader climate goals.

This paragraph moves beyond soft law or guidance. It begins to articulate what may become a standard of conduct under international human rights law, especially regarding state obligations to regulate private actors whose activities — or supply chains — contribute to environmental harm.

The language here is far more aligned with EU regulatory logic than with purely voluntary frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It suggests that states have a duty to harden corporate climate responsibility into enforceable law — a principle that lies at the heart of the CSDDD and increasingly underpins the rationale for CBAM.

Paragraph 151: Recognition of the EU’s Direction

Earlier in the opinion, Paragraph 151 offers another important signal. It reads,

“151. At the European level, several legal instruments have been adopted to address the climate emergency and promote corporate sustainability. These include Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, known as the European Climate Law, which establishes the legally binding framework for achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Furthermore, the recent Directive (EU) 2024/1760 introduces human rights and environmental due diligence obligations for large companies, including the assessment of their climate impact along global value chains.”

Though not detailed, this reference serves a subtle yet critical purpose: it places EU legislation — particularly the CSDDD — within the context of legitimate and evolving legal approaches to the climate-human rights nexus.

This mention does not amount to validation or endorsement. But it marks an acknowledgment that the EU’s framework is not operating in a legal vacuum. Instead, it is part of a wider trajectory of international law, where human rights courts are beginning to accept that supply chain responsibility and corporate climate obligations are no longer exceptional — they are becoming normative.

Paragraph 58: Transnational Carbon, Shared Responsibility

In Paragraph 58, the Court addresses the geopolitical complexity of global carbon responsibility:

“Although most Latin American countries have low cumulative GHG emissions, their participation in global supply chains related to extractive activities highlights the need to assess transnational carbon flows from an international cooperation perspective.”

This single sentence carries enormous weight. It acknowledges the Global South’s low historical responsibility, but simultaneously reinforces the need for shared accountability in supply chains — especially in extractive and carbon-intensive sectors.

The Court doesn’t suggest punitive approaches. Instead, it frames the issue through international cooperation, positioning carbon tracking and embedded emissions disclosure — core features of CBAM — as necessary components of a coordinated global response. For countries like India or Brazil, this opens a path toward engaging with EU climate rules not as impositions, but as shared tools for decarbonizing value chains.

Why This Matters for CBAM and CSDDD

Both CBAM and CSDDD have faced scepticism from the Global South for being unilateral, extraterritorial, or even neo-regulatory. [4]Yet this advisory opinion recontextualizes them. It does not demand conformity to EU law, but it does lay out principles that mirror key features of those laws — especially:

Value chain–wide due diligence
Mandatory emissions disclosure
Supply chain–level mitigation obligations

In effect, the Court provides a normative bridge: countries may differ in how they implement corporate climate accountability, but the core obligations — to regulate, to disclose, and to reduce — are increasingly shared.

This aligns well with EU’s explanation of CBAM, which seeks parity between European and non-European producers on carbon pricing, and with CSDDD, which aims to embed due diligence as a global business norm.

Implications for India

For India, this opinion has both legal and strategic significance. In 2024, the Supreme Court of India in M.K. Ranjit Singh v. Union of India recognized the right to remain free from the adverse impacts of climate change as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In doing so, the Court cited the IACtHR’s 2017 advisory opinion, demonstrating its receptiveness to global Climate and human rights jurisprudence.[5]

The 2025 IACtHR opinion — particularly Para 347 — also carries a potential to be cited in India’s judicial reasoning or government action in multiple ways:

It strengthens the argument for ESG and climate due diligence legislation in India, aligned with international trends
It legitimizes the role of carbon pricing, emissions tracking, and mandatory corporate disclosure under Indian environmental law
It provides the judiciary with a rights-based framework for interpreting trade-related challenges arising from CBAM and CSDDD

Most importantly, it gives Indian exporters and businesses, a greater clarity to understand that the EU-style climate accountability is no longer just a market access issue — it’s part of the international human rights architecture that might be acknowledged by the Indian Judicial System at some future stage as well.

Toward Global Legal Convergence — Without Uniformity

The IACtHR opinion does not harmonize global law. But it does reaffirm a set of shared legal expectations, grounded in human rights and the climate crisis. These expectations are increasingly reflected in regulatory frameworks like the CSDDD, CBAM, and even India’s own evolving ESG compliance discussions.

Rather than viewing EU rules as isolated or imposed, the opinion suggests a more realistic and constructive framing: we are witnessing the early stages of a global legal convergence on climate governance — driven not by treaties alone, but by courts, supply chains, and corporate regulation.

Conclusion

The IACtHR’s advisory opinion is a turning point. In Paragraph 347, it outlines in clear terms what states must do to ensure corporate accountability for climate harms. Through Paragraphs 151 and 58, it acknowledges both the direction taken by EU legislation and the critical role of international cooperation in regulating global value chains.

This is not a call for legal mimicry. It is a step toward shared principles, not identical laws — a blueprint for mutual recognition, not regulatory dominance.

For Europe, it strengthens the ethical and legal case for its climate regulation.
For the Global South, it provides a language of cooperation grounded in justice.
And for international law, it signals a shift: from soft recommendations to hardening norms, where climate inaction and supply chain opacity are no longer merely undesirable — they are increasingly unlawful.

NOTE- The quotes cited from the advisory opinion in this article have been procured from an unofficial English translation as the Officially translated English version of the advisory opinion has not yet been published on IACtHR’s website.

[1] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the Scope of the State Obligations for Responding to the Climate Emergency, OC-32/23 (3 July 2025) para 347 https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/request-for-an-advisory-opinion-on-the-scope-of-the-state-obligations-for-responding-to-the-climate-emergency/

[2] CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) & CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive).

[3] IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-32/23, para 151 & 58.

[4] ‘BASIC Bloc Concerned Over’ (S&P Global Commodity Insights, 25 July 2024) <https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/energy-transition/072524-basic-bloc-concerned-over-discriminatory-carbon-taxes-climate-finance-gaps>.

[5] ‘M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2024’ para 32 <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128036238/> .

Office Address

Phone Number

Email Address

Social Share:

World Pulses Day 2025

Monitoring as the cornerstone.

Dilraj Singh