With the increasing effects of climate change around the world, the world has begun to recognize that climate change is not only an ecological collapse, but also a human rights crisis.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, echoed this message in Geneva earlier this year and posed a question before the Human Rights Council:
"Are we taking the necessary measures to protect people from climate chaos, preserve their future, and manage natural resources in a way that respects human rights and the environment?"
His answer was very simple: we are not doing enough.
In this regard, the impacts of climate change must be understood not only as a climate emergency, but also as a violation of human rights, Professor Joyeeta Gupta recently told UN News.
She is co-chair of the international scientific advisory body Earth Commission and one of the United Nations' high-level representatives for science, technology, and innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Who suffers the most?
Professor Gupta stated that the 1992 climate convention never quantified human damage.
She noted that when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, the global consensus was to limit warming to 2° Celsius, later recognizing 1.5° Celsius as a safer target.
But for small island states, even that was a compromise forced by the imbalance of power, and "for them, two degrees was not survivable," Professor Gupta said.
Rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, and extreme storms threaten to wipe out entire nations. When rich countries demanded scientific proof, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with studying the difference between 1.5° Celsius and 2° Celsius," she continued.
She stated that the results were clear on the fact that 1.5° Celsius is significantly less destructive but still dangerous.
In her own research published in Nature, she argues that one degree Celsius is the fair limit, because beyond that point, the impacts of climate change violate the rights of more than one percent of the world's population, or about 100 million people.
The tragedy, she noted, is that the world crossed a threshold in 2017, and is likely to breach 1.5° Celsius by 2030.
She emphasized that promises of cooling later in the century ignore irreversible damage, including melting glaciers, collapsing ecosystems, and loss of life.
"If the Himalayan glaciers melt," she says, "they will not come back. We will live with the consequences forever."
A question of responsibility
Climate justice and development go hand in hand. Every fundamental right—from water and food to housing, mobility, and electricity—requires energy.
"We believe that we can achieve sustainable development goals without changing the way rich people live. That doesn't work mathematically or ethically," explained Professor Gupta.
His research shows that meeting basic human needs has a significant emissions footprint.
The research also emphasizes that, since the planet has already crossed safety limits, wealthy societies must reduce emissions much more aggressively, not only to protect the climate, but to create carbon space for others to realize their rights.
"Failure to do so turns inequality into injustice," she emphasized.
Climate change and displacement
Displacement is one of the most obvious effects of climate injustice. Yet international law still does not recognize "climate refugees."
Professor Gupta clearly explains the progression.
"Climate change first forces adaptation, for example, switching from water-intensive rice to drought-resistant crops. When adaptation fails, people absorb the losses: land, livelihoods, security. When survival itself becomes impossible, displacement begins," she said.
"If the land becomes too dry to grow crops and there is no drinking water," she said, "people are forced to leave."
She added that the most significant climate displacement today is occurring within countries or regions, not across continents.
"Relocation is costly, dangerous, and often undesirable. The legal challenge lies in proving causality: did people leave because of climate change, or because of other factors such as poor governance or market failures?
"This is where the science of attribution becomes crucial. New studies are now comparing decades of data to show when and how climate change is altering precipitation, heat, health outcomes, and extreme events. As this science progresses, it may become possible to incorporate climate displacement into international refugee law," she noted.
"That will be the next step."
A broken legal framework
Professor Gupta stated that climate violations have been quite difficult to address through human rights law due to the fragmented architecture of international law.
"This fragmentation allows states to compartmentalize responsibility... They can say, 'I accepted this here, but not there,'" she said.
"Environmental treaties, human rights conventions, trade agreements, and investment regimes operate in parallel worlds. Countries can sign climate agreements without being bound by human rights treaties, or protect investors while ignoring environmental destruction," she added.
She said that this is why invoking climate change as a global human rights violation has been so difficult. Until recently, climate damage was discussed in technical terms—parts per million of carbon dioxide, temperature targets, emission pathways—without explicitly asking: What does this do to people?
It is only recently that this has begun to change.
In a landmark advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that climate change cannot be assessed in isolation. Courts and governments, the ICJ stated, must take into account climate obligations as well as human rights and other environmental agreements.
For Professor Gupta, this legal change is long overdue but vital.
"This finally tells governments: you can't talk about climate without talking about people."
Climate change is transboundary
Assigning responsibility for climate change is exceptionally complex because its impacts cross borders, she said.
"For example, a Peruvian farmer sued a German company in a German court for damages caused by climate change. The court recognized that foreign plaintiffs can bring such cases, but proving the link between emissions and damage remains a major challenge. This case highlights the difficulties of holding states or companies accountable for cross-border climate-related human rights abuses," she added.
Professor Gupta stated that attribution science makes it possible to link emissions to specific harms.
The ICJ has now stated that the continued use of fossil fuels could constitute an internationally wrongful act. States are responsible not only for their own emissions, but also for regulating companies within their borders.
"Various legal strategies are emerging, from lawsuits against companies in the United States for false statements to French legislation on corporate vigilance," she added.
Climate stability as a collective human right
Rather than framing climate as an individual right, Professor Gupta argues for recognizing a collective right to a stable climate.
She explained that climate stability supports agriculture, water systems, supply chains, and daily predictability, and without it, society cannot function.
"The climate works through water," she said. "And water is at the center of everything."
Courts around the world are increasingly recognizing that climate instability undermines existing human rights, even if climate itself is not yet codified as one.
This reflection is now being echoed at the highest levels of the UN.
The erosion of fundamental rights
Speaking at the Human Rights Council in
In Geneva in June this year, UN High Commissioner Volker Türk warned that climate change was already eroding fundamental rights, particularly for the most vulnerable.
But he also presented climate action as an opportunity.
"Climate change can be a powerful lever for progress," he said, if the world commits to a just transition away from environmentally destructive systems.
"What we need now," he emphasized, "is a roadmap for rethinking our societies, our economies, and our politics in a fair and sustainable way."
Political will, power, and responsibility
"The erosion of multilateralism symbolized by the United States' repeated withdrawals from the Paris Agreement has weakened global confidence. Meanwhile, 70% of new fossil fuel expansion is being driven by four rich countries: the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia," said Professor Gupta.
She argues that neoliberal ideology focused on markets, deregulation, and individual freedom cannot solve a collective crisis.
"Climate change is a good public issue," she said. "It requires rules, cooperation, and strong states."
Developing countries face a dilemma: wait for climate finance while emissions rise, or act independently and seek justice later. Waiting, she warns, is suicidal.
As the UN High Commissioner in Geneva concluded, a just transition must leave no one behind.
"If we fail to protect lives, health, jobs, and the future," warned Volker Türk, "we will reproduce the very injustices we claim to be fighting."
Pooja Yadav
