The world is watching: Why Environmental Law Binds Governments Regardless of Political Cycles

written by Helena Szczupak, Mariana Campos, Henrieke Bünger, Valeria, and José María

On 25 October, Brazil holds the second round of its presidential election, with Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, among the candidates. The first round has already brought a growing conservative and right-wing presence in Congress, and the runoff is taking place amid serious allegations of foreign interference. The risks are not only political: they concern the Amazon, the Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders who protect it, and the climate stability of the entire planet. Jair Bolsonaro’s government left a record of deforestation, dismantled environmental oversight and violence against Indigenous communities, and a political programme that echoes it would put all of this at risk again.

Political regimes change, but the international legal duties to protect the environment and future generations remain binding. This is not an abstract principle. Across Latin America, recent political and institutional developments point to a worrying trend towards environmental deregulation. In Peru, the reorganisation of the Ministry of Environment has raised concerns about weaker environmental oversight in favour of extractive investments. In Argentina, a 2026 report by the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers documents a pattern of socio-environmental regression, including weakened environmental controls, changes to glacier protections, and policies facilitating mining and fossil fuel expansion. In Bolivia, the government dissolved the Ministry of Development Planning and Environment in August 2026 and redistributed its environmental responsibilities across other bodies, while earlier regulatory changes had already raised concerns about safeguards for mining. And in Ecuador, the merger of the environmental and energy ministries has raised similar questions about the independence of environmental oversight amid persistent threats from illegal mining and deforestation.

These developments differ in their legal implications, but they show how political priorities and economic interests can undermine the institutions, regulations and safeguards needed to protect the environment and human rights. Changes in political leadership or development strategies do not relieve States of their international legal obligations. Those obligations extend beyond electoral cycles and require States to maintain effective environmental protection, exercise due diligence to prevent significant environmental harm, and safeguard the interests of present and future generations.

The Amazon at Risk: The Real-World Consequences

During the four years of Jair Bolsonaro’s government (2018–2022), deforestation in the Amazon rose by over 60%, reaching record levels. Beyond abandoning environmental protection policies, the government actively encouraged illegal mining through official statements and backed the construction of infrastructure in protected and endangered areas.

Through the dismantling of environmental protection bodies and systematic attacks against environmental defenders and Indigenous communities, the Bolsonaro administration fused the destruction of nature with violence against those who defend it. Indigenous communities across the country suffered attacks from agribusiness interests and illegal miners, and saw their cultural and physical well-being devastated by the poisoning of rivers, soil and air. In 2021, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) filed a formal complaint before the International Criminal Court accusing Jair Bolsonaro of genocide against Indigenous peoples.

This did not happen in a national vacuum. Foreign actors have been deeply involved: Ricardo Salles, Bolsonaro’s former Minister of the Environment, was investigated over allegations of illegally exporting Amazonian timber to the United States and Europe. The current scenario is even more concerning. Donald Trump has already (unsuccessfully) pressured the Brazilian Supreme Court to halt the trial of Jair Bolsonaro for attempting a coup, and has described the 2026 election as a “test”. The United States has also withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and specialists point to Trump’s interest in exploiting Brazilian natural resources. The current Brazilian government has accused the US of election interference through global tariffs and, indirectly, through Big Tech.

Risking the Amazon means endangering not only Brazil, but the world. The largest rainforest on Earth is a vital carbon sink and a global hub of biodiversity; it regulates rainfall patterns and helps keep the planet’s temperature in check. Yet research already shows that parts of it have shifted from absorbing carbon to emitting it, and further deforestation, weaker oversight and land exploitation bring the forest closer to a dangerous tipping point. What happens in Brazil on 25 October matters far beyond its borders.

Under international law, a change of government does not extinguish a State’s existing legal obligations. The principle of the continuity of States is firmly established, and the Tinoco Arbitration recognised that changes in government or internal policy do not, as a rule, affect a State’s position under international law. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties further provides that a party “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Domestic political shifts, electoral outcomes or changes in administrative priorities cannot serve as a legal excuse to disregard binding international commitments.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion: a responsibility owed to present and future generations

In a historic and unanimous decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed that States have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, for the benefit of both present and future generations. These obligations arise not only from the climate treaties (the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement), but also from customary international law, the duty to prevent significant environmental harm, the duty to cooperate, and international human rights law.

In its advisory opinion, the Court recalled its earlier jurisprudence in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, where it observed that “the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn.” Building on this, the Court described intergenerational equity as “an expression of the idea that present generations are trustees of humanity tasked with preserving dignified living conditions and transmitting them to future generations.” Intergenerational equity thus serves as a guiding principle for interpreting the applicable law, and States must take due account of the interests of future generations when implementing the policies and measures needed to fulfil their obligations.

The Paris Agreement: binding commitments, not optional ambitions

Under the Paris Agreement, the commitments regarding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are binding. Article 4(2) requires each party to “prepare, communicate and maintain successive NDCs”, which the Court deemed an obligation of result. The content of NDCs is not entirely discretionary: that discretion operates within the standard of Article 4(3), under which each NDC must “represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition.” The Court found that the due diligence standard applicable to NDCs is stringent, and that each party must do “its utmost” to ensure its NDC is capable of making an adequate contribution to holding the increase in global average temperature to below 1.5°C.

Parties must also pursue domestic mitigation measures to achieve the objectives of their NDCs. The Court considered this an obligation of conduct rather than of result, but one that requires States “to be proactive”, to “make best efforts” and to “pursue measures”, such as putting in place legislation, administrative procedures and enforcement mechanisms, and exercising adequate vigilance to reasonably achieve their NDCs. Political changes that weaken environmental protection are difficult to reconcile with these obligations.

The Inter-American Court and OC-32/25: the Latin American perspective

Even more decisive for the Latin American context is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, issued on 29 May 2025. In it, the Court recognised the climate emergency as a structural threat to human rights, affirmed the autonomous right to a healthy environment and the right to a healthy climate, and established an enhanced due diligence standard requiring States to prevent, mitigate and remedy climate-related harm. It also underscored the duty of non-regression: States must refrain from measures that reverse, delay or curtail existing environmental protections. This is directly relevant to Brazil, which is a party to the American Convention on Human Rights and recognises the Court’s jurisdiction.

Of particular relevance is the principle of conventionality control. As developed by the Inter-American Court since the landmark Almonacid Arellano judgment and reinforced in subsequent jurisprudence, all domestic authorities (the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and any other public power) are under a permanent duty to ensure that their acts, omissions and legal norms are compatible with the American Convention and with the Court’s interpretations of it.

In light of OC-32/25, this duty acquires heightened importance in the environmental and climate fields. Any attempt to dismantle environmental protections, weaken oversight of illegal mining and deforestation, or roll back safeguards for Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders must be measured against inter-American standards on the right to a healthy environment, the rights of Indigenous peoples and the protection of human rights defenders. A change of political orientation does not suspend or dilute this obligation. On the contrary, conventionality control operates precisely to prevent democratic majorities or newly elected governments from undermining rights that the State has already recognised at the international level.

Our Call to Action: The World Is Watching

The Brazilian elections reflect the connection between sovereignty, multilateralism, democracy and climate justice. Protecting the Amazon, and therefore the planet, means respecting the authority and legitimacy of those whose existence is intertwined with the forest. States in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa have a duty to take a stand, to condemn violations of human rights and to help secure the conditions in which Indigenous peoples and the forest can thrive.

The advisory opinions of 2025 show how we can use the law to protect our future, and the risk of losing compliance in Brazil cannot be overlooked. At WYCJ, we therefore call on:

• Governments and state institutions to remember that compliance with international environmental and human rights law will be scrutinised by the international community and by global youth movements.

• Civil society, judicial bodies and international partners to uphold accountability mechanisms regardless of political pressure.
  

Political cycles come and go. The legal duty to protect the Amazon, the climate and the generations to come does not. The world is watching.