On 2 May 2025, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR, the Court) received a request for an advisory opinion concerning the obligations of states in the context of climate change. This development was anticipated: as early as 2023, there were indications such a request was in preparation (at 54:30) and, that same year, the African Commission issued a Call for Comments to the ‘Study on the Impact of Climate Change on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Africa’. This post examines three key aspects: (1) the contents of the petition, (2) its prospects with respect to jurisdiction and admissibility and (3) the potential contribution of an advisory opinion to the broader climate justice movement.
1. The contents of the petition
The petition presents the AfCHPR with nine questions, which appear to distinguish between the obligations of ‘African states’ and those of ‘States’ more broadly; however, this distinction may be subject to interpretation.
The petition seeks clarification on the positive climate obligations of African states under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (petition, para. 93(b)). In doing so, it invites the Court to interpret Article 24 of the Charter—which guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment—in a way that explicitly addresses climate change. To date, the explicit linkage between climate change and human rights under Article 24 of the African Charter has not been explicitly articulated in parties’ submissions or in the Court’s judgments, nor in decisions of the Commission in cases where Article 24 has been invoked, such as SERAC v. Nigeria.
The petition also seeks clarification on African states’ obligations beyond the realm of human rights. Specifically, it requests guidance on duties to implement adaptation, resilience, and mitigation measures in response to climate change (petition, para. 93(d)), as well as the obligation to cooperate internationally—particularly with historical emitters—to limit global warming to below the 1.5°C threshold, thereby averting an existential climate crisis for current and future generations on the continent (petition, para. 93(g)). The petitioners urge the Court to consider “other relevant instruments” beyond the African Charter (petition, para. 92(a)) and to “interpret and lay down applicable custom” (petition, para. 92(b)). However, it remains unclear whether the AfCHPR has the competence to refer to external sources, such as Multilateral Environmental Agreements or COP decisions, in issuing its opinion. Article 4(1) of the Ouagadougou Protocol authorizes advisory opinions on “any legal matter relating to the Charter or any other relevant human rights instruments,” raising questions about the permissible scope of reference.
A final point of note concerning African states’ obligations is their responsibility “in relation to third parties, including international monopolies, multinational corporations, and non-state actors operating on the continent” (petition, para. 93(f)). This is a timely and distinctive aspect of the petition, offering the AfCHPR an opportunity to expand on its recent decision in Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Côte d’Ivoire, where it found that the Ivory Coast had breached multiple human rights obligations in the context of corporate accountability.
Beyond the obligations of African states, the petition may also be interpreted as inviting the AfCHPR to opine on the responsibilities of other states. While several questions explicitly refer to “African states” or state parties to the African Charter, others speak more broadly about the obligations of “States” to, for instance, “facilitate a just, transparent, equitable and accountable transition in the context of climate change in Africa” (petition, para. 93(c)) and to “compensate for loss, damage and reparations” (petition, para. 93(e)). Interpreted this way, these questions appear to signal a desire for the AfCHPR to address the responsibilities of developed countries toward African states. These might include, for instance, providing scaled-up climate finance and technology transfer, supporting capacity building, ending fossil fuel expansion and redirecting investments, or paying reparations for historical emissions.
Taken together, these requests are bold and far-reaching, reflecting the urgency and ambition required to confront the climate crisis in an equitable manner.
2. Jurisdiction and admissibility prospects
Jurisdiction and admissibility are pivotal considerations, as the AfCHPR has received 15 advisory opinion requests but has rendered only three substantive opinions addressing the legal questions posed.
Among the various jurisdictional and admissibility criteria for advisory opinions before the AfCHPR, establishing the standing of the petitioner has historically been a challenging requirement. The African human rights system distinguishes itself from other international judicial bodies by permitting “any African organization recognized by the African Union (AU)” to request advisory opinions, as stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Ouagadougou Protocol. This provision explains why the current advisory request originates from the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) (alongside other organizations such as the youth network Resilient 40, South Africa-based Natural Justice, and the Environmental Lawyers Collective for Africa). It is particularly fitting that such a climate change-related request emanates from civil society, reflecting the inclusive nature of the African human rights framework.
However, many organizations have struggled to meet the stringent requirements for their requests to be accepted. Organizations must be recognised by the African Union (Article 4(1) of the Protocol, Rule 82 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure) and meet specific criteria related to their establishment, structure and financial resources, inter alia. PALU, however, has a track record of meeting these requirements, having successfully submitted previous requests that led to substantive advisory opinions (Advisory Opinion 001/2020 Requested by the Pan African Lawyers Union 2021; Advisory Opinion 001/2018 Requested by the Pan African Lawyers Union 2020). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the Court will find the request admissible.
3. The potential contribution of an advisory opinion to the broader climate justice movement
The petition emerges amid a wave of climate-related advisory opinion requests: one pending before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), another pending before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and a third rendered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in 2024. Given this context, one might ask: what unique value does this African Court petition offer, and is it necessary?
First, the request is notable for its focus on the African Charter—something that sets it apart from other pending advisory opinion requests on climate change. This distinct emphasis could have several important effects. To begin with, it may stimulate domestic climate litigation across the continent, building on existing momentum, and could even lead to contentious cases being brought before the African Court itself (as I have speculated here). While global discourse often centers on major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States, China, and India, it is worth noting that countries like South Africa and Algeria are also significant emitters within the African context. Furthermore, the opinion comes at a time when climate-related legislation is gaining traction in Africa. Laws such as South Africa’s Carbon Tax Act (Act No. 15/2019), Nigeria’s Climate Change Act 2021; Kenya’s Climate Change Act (Act No. 11/2016); Uganda’s National Climate Change Act 2021 and South Africa’s new Climate Change Act (2024) demonstrate a growing legislative commitment. The Court’s opinion could reinforce and inspire similar legal developments in countries yet to adopt such frameworks. More broadly, this initiative could contribute to a deepening climate consciousness across the continent, strengthening public awareness of the undeniable and growing link between climate change and human rights impacts.
Second, the AfCHPR advisory opinion could address critical gaps potentially left by the pending ICJ opinion. 12 African states and the African Union (AU) actively participated in the ICJ proceedings, and several developing countries highlighted points of concern relevant to Africa—such as reparations, vulnerability, debt cancellation, and the interpretation of the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). Furthermore, several states emphasised the relevance of human rights. However, the depth of the ICJ’s engagement with these specific concerns remains uncertain.
There may be concerns about potential fragmentation in light of multiple climate-related advisory opinions being sought from international courts. A key question is whether these opinions might diverge or contradict one another. However, the AfCHPR possesses certain advantages that may enable it to offer a complementary perspective. Firstly, its mandate allowing it to interpret “any other relevant human rights instruments,” provides an opportunity to establish connections with instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in light of the Teitiota v. New Zealand, and Billy v. Australia decisions), or the European Convention on Human Rights (referencing judgments like KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland). It could create a comprehensive tapestry of international human rights law that underscores the imperative of addressing climate change.
Secondly, the timing of the AfCHPR’s advisory opinion could be advantageous. Unlike the 2021 Pan African Parliament Advisory Opinion, where expedited consideration was requested, the petitioners in the current climate change advisory opinion have not sought expedited proceedings. Historically, the AfCHPR has issued two of its three advisory opinions within approximately 13 months, while the third took about 2 years and 8 months. This suggests that the Court may have sufficient time to carefully study the forthcoming advisory opinions from the ICJ and IACtHR and position its own opinion accordingly.
Overall, this petition marks a historic milestone in the pursuit of climate justice. As the AfCHPR considers this unprecedented request, we will remain vigilant and attentive to forthcoming developments.