Climate Change Climate justice Intersectionality Right to healthy environment Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Intersectionality in Climate Jurisprudence – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Approach to Climate Vulnerability


Image Credit: Markus Spiske via Unsplash

by Eoin Jackson | Jul 21, 2025

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on Human Rights and the Climate Emergency released on 3 July 2025 represents a landmark moment for the climate justice movement. The Court recognised a human right to a stable climate and set out a series of unprecedented climate mitigation and adaptation obligations. This blog focuses on the Court’s approach to vulnerability and examines the manner in which the Court integrated an intersectional approach to climate change into its overarching recommendations.

Vulnerability in Climate Jurisprudence

Climate vulnerability should be viewed through an intersectional lens because groups such as elderly people, children, indigenous people, people with disabilities, women, and those who identify as gender-diverse/LGBTQ+ all face worse outcomes in a climate-disrupted world, with these vulnerabilities exacerbated by structural factors like poverty and inequality. However, previous climate rulings, such as the widely-discussed European Court of Human Rights case of Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland have tended to only appreciate particular minority traits in isolation, rather than examining how climate harm could worsen underlying and overlapping vulnerabilities. In Klimaseniorinnen, the Court focused largely on determining whether the individual elderly women applicants had suffered particular harm to be considered “victims” for the purposes of establishing standing, overlooking how gender and other social determinants could play a role in examining the differentiated impacts of climate change.

The Advisory Opinion’s Intersectional Approach to Vulnerability

In contrast, the Inter-American Court shows a strong awareness of both the structural inequalities facing groups vulnerable to climate change, and how these inequalities merit differentiated approaches in addressing climate change.

It first considers that the “fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens” [590] but then interprets the jus cogens to encompass a broad range of overlapping and structural vulnerabilities. For example, the Court states that “climate change creates extraordinary and increasingly serious risks to the human rights of certain population groups whose situation of vulnerability is increased by the confluence of intersectional and structural factors of discrimination” [594] and makes particular reference to the role of poverty and inequality as two of these structural factors. The Court’s awareness of the complex and multidimensional aspects of vulnerability is then reflected in its articulation of differentiated protection measures in the context of (among other groups) children and adolescents, indigenous peoples and tribes, Afro-descendant and peasant communities.

A particularly welcome example of the intersectional approach taken by the Court (because it is often under-examined in previous jurisprudence) is its emphasis on understanding these impacts beyond the gender binary, with the Court noting “due to stigmatisation and discrimination, gender-diverse persons face an increased risk of gender-based violence during and after climate-induced disasters.”[618] The Court also recommends a series of context-specific measures for different minority groups which show an awareness of unique vulnerabilities, noting for example that States have an obligation to “ensure that health care provided to LGBTIQ+ persons during and after climate change-induced disasters are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality.” [618]

The Court also emphasises that “the recognition of new forms of vulnerability is essential to guarantee the effectiveness of human rights in the context of the climate emergency and to ensure a just and inclusive transition, under the prism of resilience.” [629] This is a significant enhancement of intersectionality in climate jurisprudence because it places states under a specific duty to identify these potential new vulnerabilities and ensure relevant needs are taken into account when taking climate action. In turn, this opens space for greater interactions between the state and minority individuals/communities to uncover under-examined elements of vulnerability that should enjoy a greater and differentiated degree of protection. The Court therefore reinforces an intersectional understanding of climate vulnerability by moving beyond typical ‘labels’ applied to minority groups and instead framing climate vulnerability as an evolving process that might require further consideration of who is most at risk from climate harm.

The Court’s approach opens the door to a specific and context-based approach to climate vulnerability, one which courts would benefit from examining when considering future climate jurisprudence. Victims of climate change often do not neatly ‘fit’ into particular boxes, and the Court’s approach serves as an effective framing tool for illustrating the importance of intersectionality, both to ensure an integrated approach to climate action and to advance beyond typical legal understandings of victim status, harm, and what counts as an appropriate remedy. The Advisory Opinion marks a positive step forward in framing climate vulnerability in an intersectional and context-sensitive manner but requires further concretisation both through its implementation by relevant states, and through further articulation of an intersectional understanding of climate vulnerability in future jurisprudence.

About Eoin Jackson
Eoin is a PhD Candidate in Law at the London School of Economics.