The new legal era of climate finance: from charity to justice

Climate finance is no longer a matter of political goodwill. A growing body of international law is making clear that it is a legal obligation grounded in human rights.

That shift was at the heart of discussions at the 62nd session of the Human Rights Council, where governments and civil society examined how climate finance can better support the realization of human rights. CESR contributed to the upcoming Secretary-General's synthesis report on actionable pathways in mobilizing sufficient climate financing and associated challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of the full realization of human rights for all people, and our Executive Director, Dr. Maria Ron Balsera, joined the Council's annual panel on the human rights impacts of climate change, which this year focused on “Facilitating actionable pathways for gaining momentum in climate financing in the context of addressing the adverse impacts of climate change on the full realization of human rights for all people”.

In her intervention, Maria argued that climate finance is not simply about mobilizing more money. It is about power: who pays, who benefits, and who decides. Those questions are rooted in histories of colonial exploitation, unequal economic governance, and corporate impunity; and they determine whether climate action advances justice or reinforces inequality.

At CESR, we believe a human rights approach transforms the debate. It shifts climate finance from charity to justice, clarifying who owes what to whom, strengthening transparency and accountability, and ensuring that those most affected are at the center of decision-making.

This moment matters because the legal landscape has changed. A series of landmark international rulings has confirmed that climate finance is no longer an aspirational commitment—it is a binding obligation. Yet the global financing system continues to fall short, failing on scale, equity, governance, and accountability. Bridging that gap is now one of the defining challenges for climate justice.

There is growing momentum in climate-related human rights jurisprudence

The legal landscape has shifted 

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice confirmed that developed states have a legally binding obligation to provide climate finance under international law. Earlier that same year, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reinforced this, specifically highlighting progressive taxation and measures against tax abuse, corruption, and illicit financial flows as essential tools of international cooperation. Both rulings build on existing duties set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to mobilize maximum available resources and cooperate internationally. 

Most recently, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution welcoming the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, which found that states have a legal responsibility to act to prevent the climate crisis from worsening. This UNGA resolution, spearheaded by Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation on the frontline of the climate crisis, and several other countries, won the support of more than two-thirds of UN member states: 141 voted in favor, 28 abstained and 8 countries voted against: Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi arabia, USA and Yemen. 

For far too long, multinational fossil fuel corporations have treated climate action as a political choice, but the UN General Assembly confirmed it is a binding legal duty. This goes to show that human rights and climate finance are legally intertwined and not optional or aspirational. These advisory opinions emphasize that states must mobilize accessible, sufficient, and equitable finance as a legal obligation. 

As CESR, we believe that, taken together, these obligations mean that climate finance must be rights-based in both form and function. It must empower those most affected, redress historical injustice, and reshape the systems that caused the crisis in the first place.

A wave of climate jurisprudence is building and Africa is next

Three international courts have now issued climate opinions in quick succession: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in May 2024,; and both the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2025.  Each, independently, has reached the same underlying conclusion: climate action is not a matter of political discretion, but a legal duty.

Three decades ago, in the case of the Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and CESR v. Nigeria (Ogoni case), the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights found that Nigeria's failure to regulate multinational oil corporations in Ogoniland violated not only environmental rights but the Ogoni people's right to freely dispose of their own wealth and natural resources. It traced that violation explicitly to the history of colonial exploitation and the continued vulnerability of African resources to foreign misappropriation. 

The importance of the case cannot be underestimated. Writers have acknowledged the case as one of the most important jurisprudential contributions of the African Commission regarding the protection of minority peoples' rights in Africa (Wachira, 2008). It was a giant stride towards the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights of Africans. The African Commission's initiative in seeking justice for indigenous people was important because the Commission went on to determine a contentious case involving violations of the myriad of human rights but focusing specifically on the right to a general satisfactory environment (D. Shelton, 2002). In so doing, it articulated the duties of African governments to monitor and control the activities of multinational corporations.

This precedent set one of the foundations for something larger today. In May 2025, the Pan African Lawyers Union and the African Climate Platform petitioned the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights to interpret states' obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in light of the climate crisis. 

Unlike the ICJ and IACtHR opinions, which centered on mitigation, the African petition foregrounds adaptation, just transition, and participatory governance, –a framing that speaks directly to a continent that contributes less than 4% of global emissions yet is home to 17 of the 20 most climate-vulnerable nations in the world.

Climate finance and a just transition are increasingly recognized across courts and continents as human rights obligations in their own right, central to what these rulings require of states.

We expect the African Court's advisory opinion as early as mid-July. Once it is adopted, it will add to  a body of jurisprudence spanning four continents and every major regional human rights system. CESR and allies will be watching closely for how it treats the fiscal dimension: debt, taxation, and reparations, not just emissions and adaptation planning in the abstract.

Climate justice still at crossroads: A system failing on quantity, quality, equity, and accountability 

 

During her contribution, CESR’s Executive Director (Dr. Maria Ron Balsera) stated that the current system fails on  three fronts. 

First, on quantity: roughly $2 trillion flowed in 2023, against estimated needs of four times that by 2030; the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) agreed in Baku remains far below what developing countries requested. 

Second, on quality: According to Oxfam, two-thirds of climate finance arrives in the form of loans rather than grants, with many countries now spending more servicing that debt than responding to the climate impacts it was meant to address.

As Maria explained: “Historically, around 65% of climate finance has gone to mitigation, leaving adaptation and loss and damage, the immediate priorities for Global South countries, confronting present and future climate impacts chronically underfunded.” CESR, alongside allies and partners, continues to emphasize that current funding for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage falls far short of what is needed to match the scale of the climate crisis or to uphold rights and deliver justice.

Third and finally, the current system fails on equity: resources rarely reach those most affected, with Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and women's organizations systematically underfunded. On governance: fossil fuel subsidies continue to dwarf climate finance commitments, while opaque processes block communities from accessing resources directly.

To understand these failures and find sustainable solutions, we must look at debt and tax, the two factors that determine whether governments have the fiscal space to respond to the climate crisis. High-income countries bear overwhelming responsibility for historical emissions, yet many lower-income countries remain trapped in debt and excluded from decision-making power. At the same time, hundreds of billions of dollars are lost annually through cross-border tax abuse. These resources could fund adaptation, loss and damage, and a just transition.

Climate finance injustice is not accidental. It is systemic. Addressing it requires not only transferring resources, but redistributing power through a reparative and rights-based approach.

The good news is that solutions already exist. Together with progressive fiscal reforms, across the world, Indigenous-led funds, community resource governance initiatives and locally driven adaptation programs are delivering stronger and more sustainable outcomes because they place decision-making power in the hands of affected communities.

The lesson is clear: direct access, gender-responsive budgeting, free, prior, and informed consent, and meaningful accountability are not optional—they are essential.

Four priorities for reform, and three asks for the Human Rights Council

CESR identifies four priorities for reform: scale up public climate finance through progressive taxation and the phase-out of fossil-fuel subsidies; improve quality by shifting from loans to grants and providing debt relief after climate disasters; prioritize adaptation and loss and damage, particularly for women-led and Indigenous-led initiatives; and reform multilateral development banks so they serve people and planet rather than primarily de-risking private investment.

There are three concrete asks of the Human Rights Council, which we will keep pressing for in the Secretary-General’s synthesis report and in the lead-up to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). This year’s HLPF convening will review five SDGs, including Goal 17 on the means of implementation and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, the goal under which financing commitments are formally tracked.  

1. Name the obligation. The Secretary-General's report to the Council's 63rd session should reflect that adequate and equitable climate finance is now a binding human rights duty, affirmed by both the ICJ and the Inter-American Court.
2. Set the standard. A human-rights-based approach should become the norm — grounded in transparency, participation, accountability, free, prior and informed consent, and direct access for affected communities.
3. Expand fiscal space justly. States should champion measures that tax polluters, cancel unjust debt, curb illicit financial flows, and embed a reparations dimension in climate finance, redistributing both money and power.

The courts have clarified the law. Communities have demonstrated the solutions. The fiscal tools already exist. What remains is the political will to turn knowledge into action, and action into justice.

From Bonn to Geneva to New York: seizing the moment for climate justice

Just a few weeks ago, at the SB64 climate talks in Bonn, the issue of reparations for climate harms through community empowerment and justice was raised. CESR, alongside our allies and partners, emphasized the need to ground human rights and community-centered mechanisms. This means integrating economic, gender, and legal obligations, as well as common but differentiated responsibilities, into a single, coherent argument: that repair is not charity but a legal obligation.

Through the debates in  Geneva and on to New York, the demand does not change; climate finance must be treated as a legal and reparative obligation.

CESR will continue to track the outcome of HRC62 and the forthcoming African Court advisory opinion as part of our ongoing work connecting climate, fiscal, and gender justice. Read more in our Decoding Climate Finance guide and our blog series on the just transition.