chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
    October 30, 2024 Human Rights

    The Sacchi Case: Lessons for the Future of Environmental Rights and Climate Justice

    By Júlia Miranda Loes Alcalá and Maria Alice Del Ponte Camiña Moreira

    Recently, there has been a significant rise in climate litigation, with the total number of cases more than doubling between 2017 and 2023. One noteworthy approach within this field is human rights-based climate litigation. This approach acknowledges that states, by failing to control greenhouse gas emissions, are responsible for the consequent impacts, such as the exacerbation of extreme weather events and the amplification of existing socioeconomic inequalities, which violate people’s rights to life, health, culture, housing, an adequate standard of living, and a healthy environment.

    One prominent example of human rights-based climate litigation is the case of Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al., Case No. 104/2019 (Comm. on the Rights of the Child, 2021). In this case, the plaintiffs, led by Greta Thunberg and other youth climate activists, filed a complaint against Argentina and several other countries before the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). They contended that the countries’ failure to take sufficient action to combat climate change infringed on their rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. They also claimed that these countries’ inaction contributed to climate change, which directly impacted their lives and future prospects. One of the many statements of note came from Ranton Anjain, 16 years old, who mentioned that access to clean water in the Marshall Islands has become increasingly challenging due to a lack of rainfall.

    A young girl holds a sign that reads, We borrow the Earth from our children, during a climate protest.

    A young girl holds a sign that reads, We borrow the Earth from our children, during a climate protest.

    UN WOMEN/AMANDA VOISARD, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, VIA FLICKR

    In 2021, the CRC dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated that they had exhausted all domestic remedies before bringing their complaint to the international level. However, the committee acknowledged the gravity of the climate crisis and recognized that states have a duty to protect children from foreseeable harm, including that resulting from climate change. Moreover, despite the unfavorable outcome, the reasoning in the case is highly relevant to future climate human rights litigants.

    Key takeaways from the case include: First, the CRC groundbreakingly established that states have extraterritorial jurisdiction over children who suffer harm due to climate change. The CRC considered that states have effective control over the sources of emissions contributing to reasonably foreseeable significant harm to children outside their territory. In other words, the states’ failure to control emissions led to the violation of children’s human rights, a failure that was both within the states’ control and reasonably foreseeable. This model of extraterritorial jurisdiction is crucial for making climate litigation viable, given the unique characteristics of climate change, which often transcend national borders and involve diffuse sources of harm, complicating litigation efforts.

    Second, the fact that the decision came from an international body is in itself significant. While most climate litigation cases have been brought in national courts, primarily in the United States and Europe, only a very small number have been filed before international bodies. This international ruling sets an important precedent on a global scale, and even though the case was dismissed due to lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it highlighted a key procedural barrier in international climate litigation. This underscored the importance of establishing clear and accessible legal pathways for individuals and groups to seek redress for climate change-related harm.

    Overall, the Sacchi case helped raise global awareness about the impact of climate change on future generations, highlighting the evolving field of climate justice and the interconnectedness of climate change and human rights. It also empowered young activists by demonstrating their ability to engage in international legal processes and advocate for stronger climate action, emphasizing their role in driving global change.

    Júlia Miranda Loes Alcalá

    Policy fellow at Masa Group, Washington, D.C.

    Júlia Miranda Loes Alcalá is a lawyer member of the São Paulo State Chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association. She holds an LLM in international legal studies with an International Human Rights Law Certificate from Georgetown University Law Center and is a policy fellow at Masa Group, Washington, D.C.

    Maria Alice Del Ponte Camiña Moreira

    Center on Inclusive Trade and Development

    Maria Alice Del Ponte Camiña Moreira is a Brazilian lawyer experienced in agribusiness sector issues. She holds an LLM in international legal studies from Georgetown University Law Center and serves as a research assistant at the Center on Inclusive Trade and Development.

    Entity:
    Topic: