Disasters Are Not Gender-Neutral: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Call for Intersectional Climate Justice. By Vesper Junqueira (1)

On January 9, 2023, the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Colombia submitted a joint request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (c) for an Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States to respond to the climate emergency under international human rights law. The request was made pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and in accordance with Articles 70.1 and 70.2 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 

Now, more than two years later, in its landmark Advisory Opinion², the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirms what gender and disaster scholars, fe

minists, and frontline communities have long asserted: disasters do not impact everyone equally, and the failure to address structural inequality in climate and disaster response is a violation of human rights. 

Among its key conclusions, the IACtHR concluded that States have binding obligations to prevent and address climate-related harms through urgent mitigation and adaptation measures, especially to protect the most vulnerable. The Court recognized the right to a healthy climate, emphasized the need for inclusive participation and environmental justice, and, in a groundbreaking move, affirmed by majority that Nature itself can be a rights-holder. 

From the outset, the Court draws attention to the fact that the climate crisis, manifesting through both sudden-onset disasters and slow-onset events, disproportionately impacts groups already subjected to structural discrimination. This includes, but is not limited to, women, girls, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, LGBTQIA+ persons, older adults, persons with disabilities, and people in situations of poverty or displacement (para. 389, 594–596). 

The Court does not view these vulnerabilities in isolation. Instead, it adopts an intersectional framework, recognizing that multiple and structural forms of discrimination often overlap and reinforce one another (para. 592). While acknowledging that climate-related emergencies pose risks to all, the Court emphasizes that certain groups are “rendered disproportionately vulnerable” due to intersecting factors such as poverty, inequality, and systemic exclusion, all of which limit their capacity to adapt (paras. 594, 625). In light of this reality, the Court explicitly states that “the inclusion of differentiated measures in all actions undertaken by States is necessary to ensure substantive equality in the enjoyment of rights in the context of the climate emergency” (para. 596). 

Among the most urgent concerns addressed in the Opinion is the increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV) during and after disasters, particularly for women and girls (para. 614). As the Court notes, emergencies exacerbate pre-existing gender roles, with women often responsible for caregiving and household survival. In contexts where access to food, water, and sanitation is disrupted, these responsibilities intensify, often without adequate support. 

The Opinion cites evidence showing that women are frequently the last to eat, the ones expected to find water at increasingly distant sources, and those most exposed to sexual and physical violence during these tasks. Thus, the Court calls for preventive action, reminding States of their obligations to prevent, investigate, and sanction all forms of GBV, including those that occur in disaster settings (para. 614). Moreover, States must incorporate a gender and intersectional perspective in all actions undertaken in response to the climate emergency (para. 614).  

Notably, the Advisory Opinion explicitly affirms the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in the context of climate-related disasters; an issue largely absent from mainstream disaster policy frameworks. The Court acknowledges that discrimination, stigmatization, and violence against gender-diverse individuals tend to escalate during and after climate-induced emergencies (para. 618). In light of this, the Court affirms that, during and after disasters, States are obligated to take proactive measures to ensure that LGBTQIA+ people have access to high-quality, non-discriminatory healthcare, delivered by personnel trained in gender and sexual diversity. In addition, States must guarantee safe and inclusive temporary shelters that actively prevent harassment and uphold the dignity of all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression (para. 618). 

This establishes a clear legal standard: disaster responses based on heteronormative, binary family models that overlook gender diversity are incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, the Court affirms that these principles are not optional: they form part of jus cogens, the peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted (para. 590). As such, States are not only prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices, but are also required to take steps to dismantle structural inequalities, including within the design and implementation of climate and disaster policies. 

The Court elucidates that this duty extends beyond avoiding direct harm. States have a legal obligation to adopt affirmative measures (such as laws, policies, and resource allocations) that actively redress inequality and protect groups facing heightened vulnerability (para. 591). Failure to do so is not only a policy gap but a violation of international human rights law. 

One of the most significant repercussions of that is the clear obligation the Opinion places on States to collect, produce, and analyze disaggregated data, including information on gender, age, disability, ethnicity, income level, and geographic location (paras. 512–513). As the Court highlights, without such data, it is impossible to design adaptation and mitigation policies that reflect the actual needs and vulnerabilities of diverse populations. 

Moreover, this duty extends well beyond the act of data collection. States are required to conduct risk assessments that account for the differentiated impacts of climate change, monitor health, housing, and livelihood vulnerabilities among marginalized groups, and develop indicators that reveal patterns of inequality, including those embedded in multidimensional poverty (paras. 508, 594–596). These responsibilities are integral to a broader obligation: the progressive elimination of the structural causes that perpetuate and intensify climate vulnerability. 

The IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion represents a paradigm shift in how climate-related disasters are to be understood and addressed within legal and policy frameworks. It reframes emergency response not as a matter of technical or logistical efficiency, but as a question of human rights, structural equity, and historical accountability. The Opinion calls on States to develop inclusive, participatory, and gender-responsive climate adaptation plans (paras. 389–391), and to ensure that recovery efforts go beyond physical infrastructure to also support social cohesion, cultural survival, and bodily autonomy (paras. 423, 626–628). It further emphasizes the importance of embedding intersectionality and community leadership at every stage of disaster governance. In doing so, the Court powerfully asserts that climate justice cannot be separated from gender justice, and that both must be rooted in the lived experiences and agency of those most impacted. 

While the Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 is formally non-binding, its legal and political significance is profound. As scholars have noted, advisory opinions, especially when issued by respected international courts, can serve as “Rosetta Stones” for interpreting ambiguous treaty obligations, guiding both domestic and international decision-making on climate governance (Tigre & Rocha, 2025, p. 5)³. 

Thus, in practice, this Advisory Opinion provides a normative framework that national courts and policymakers can draw upon to incorporate intersectional, rights-based approaches to disaster response and climate adaptation. It is likely to be cited in strategic litigation across the Americas and beyond, particularly in cases that challenge gender-blind disaster relief or discriminatory displacement practices. It may also serve as a benchmark for national adaptation plans, helping align domestic disaster risk reduction frameworks with international human rights obligations. Furthermore, the Opinion provides a powerful tool for civil society and grassroots organizations seeking to hold States accountable for failing to protect vulnerable populations, especially women, girls and gender-diverse individuals, during climate emergencies. 

The Advisory Opinion’s recognition of intersectionality and the specific vulnerabilities of historically marginalized groups, such as LGBTQIA+ individuals and women in disaster contexts, reflects the hopeful vision outlined by Rocha and Tigre (2025): that international law can be a living instrument, shaped by creative interpretation, grassroots pressure, and collective action. By articulating a legal framework that links climate vulnerability to structural inequality, the Opinion empowers States, courts, and communities to reimagine disaster response as a space for reparative and rights-based transformation.  

End Notes

1.     Author Vesper Junqueira (they/he) holds a Bachelor of Laws from PUC-SP (Brazil) and is currently pursuing a Master’s in International and Development Studies at the Geneva Graduate Institute, specializing in environment and sustainability. They work at the DuClima Institute, a Brazilian NGO dedicated to advancing climate justice, where they lead work on climate-induced displacement. Their research explores climate justice through a decolonial and human rights-based lens, with particular emphasis on gender and queer perspectives on climate (im)mobilities. 

2.     2 At the time of writing, the Advisory Opinion is only available in Spanish, thus all English translations are unofficial, made by the author.

3.     Maria Antonia Tigre and Armando Rocha (eds.), The Role of Advisory Opinions in International Law in the Context of the Climate Crisis (Brill, 2025) Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/249.