News

 

Last December, in a landmark case for the fight of indigenous peoples against exclusionary conservation in Peru, the Bellavista Mixed Court ordered government entities to grant title to the ancestral territory of the Kichwa Native Community of Puerto Franco—located in the department of San Martín—, to annul forestry concessions, and to conduct prior consultation on the creation of the Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) and its Master Plan; guaranteeing the community's access to natural resources and its participation in the management of the park, which includes the distribution of benefits from the sale of carbon credits that has occurred behind their backs since 2008.

 

The ruling is a response to the injunction filed in 2020 by the community and the Ethnic Council of the Kichwa Peoples of the Amazon with the aim of protecting the right to communal property, which includes access to and control of natural resources in their territory, as well as prior consultation on acts and administrative measures that have deprived the community of its territory and imposed an exclusionary conservation scheme with the creation of the PNCAZ to certify a REDD+ project (conservation and increase of carbon reserves and sustainable forest management as a measure of mitigating climate change).

 

The case revealed violations of the internationally recognized rights of Indigenous communities during the implementation of a carbon credit project promoted under the Paris Agreement. This is because the creation of the park affected the enjoyment of territorial rights by at least 29 Kichwa communities, who did not benefit from the distribution of funds—tens of millions of dollars in carbon credits—derived from the sale of ecosystem services provided by their ancestral territories.

More information here

 

On September 15, 2024, the Decree reforming the Constitution of the Judiciary was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation. This reform has generated concern among those who advocate for environmental protection in Mexico. One of the most controversial points is the relaxation of the processes for electing judges and magistrates.

 

Last December, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling that state actions allowing the continuation of a fossil fuel-based energy system violate the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment, particularly for young people. In a 6-1 decision, the high court determined that Montana’s constitutional guarantee of the right to a healthy environment includes a “stable climate.”

The landmark ruling is part of the country's first constitutional trial on climate change.
In it, a group of 16 young people—represented by Our Children's Trust and the Western
Environmental Law Center argued that the State was violating its constitutional right to a
a healthy environment by promoting the fossil fuel industry and exacerbating the effects
of the climate crisis. “This ruling is a victory not only for us, but for everyone
“Young people whose future is threatened by climate change,” Rikki said in a statement.
Held, plaintiff in the case.

The Supreme Court also ruled that state laws prohibiting
take into account greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts in the
decisions on permits for the fossil industry, as well as those that prevent the
constitutional resources in the courts.

“This ruling clarifies that the Constitution establishes a clear directive for Montana
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the
country per capita, and to make the transition to a future of clean and renewable energy,”
“ declared Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, in a statement.

 

More information here and here .

 

 

About two hours from Santiago, the capital of Chile, lies the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví, with just over 40,000 inhabitants. The area had the potential to be a wonderful place to live—with its rich agriculture and bountiful sea—offering artisanal fishing and opportunities to develop tourism. But these ways of life were sacrificed to the relentless advance of intensive industrial activity. Today, more than 30 different companies, many highly polluting, operate there, making it a dangerous place to live.

 

Mass poisonings of adults and young people are common in the bay , often resulting in hospitalization. Coal spills on the beaches, staining the sand, are also frequent. In 2022 alone, over 100 such incidents were recorded . While not officially documented, there is even more chilling evidence of the dire situation of the local population. Many children require specialized education due to developmental or learning difficulties, and nearly every resident has a loved one suffering from cancer or other illnesses linked to pollution exposure.

 

The situation disproportionately affects children, who are especially vulnerable to pollution. The impact on women is also significant, as they are often forced to leave their jobs to care for sick family members.

 

The effects of the energy transition

 

The energy transition process in Chile is part of the context of what is happening in the bay. For many years, the country obtained more than 50% of its energy from coal-fired power plants. But that is changing, as dependence on fossil fuels (which Chile must import) is giving way to the use of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.

 

All of this has direct consequences for the area. Following the Decarbonization Plan implemented by the government in 2019, two of the four AES Andes thermoelectric plants operating in the bay were shut down. But what will happen to the other two that still don't have a closure date? And what about the environmental damage left behind by those that have already closed? It's time to talk about restoring the area to achieve justice for the region.

 

The uprising of the communities

 

In 2016, a group of people, supported by the environmental advocacy organization Environmental Defense, filed a lawsuit for environmental damage against the government and all the companies operating in the area. Only this year, seven years later, did the legal process culminate in a verdict. This long-awaited decision will be a turning point in the lives of all those who bravely stood up to bring to light the injustice they have suffered.

 

Meanwhile, in 2019, the Supreme Court resolved several legal appeals for protection following mass poisoning incidents, ruling in favor of the communities and issuing a landmark ruling —perhaps the most important environmental decision in Chile. The ruling orders the State to implement 15 measures to identify the sources of contamination and remediate the environmental damage in the area. Sadly, the ruling has not yet been properly implemented.

 

Continuing with the progress, the Supreme Court recently issued three rulings addressing the non-compliance with the 2019 judgment and providing tools to enforce it. But much remains to be done.

 

So what now?

 

The Quintero-Puchuncaví case and the numerous lawsuits that have arisen in the area demonstrate the importance of law and litigation as tools for people to access justice. Strategic litigation, whether climate-related or environmental, is not easy and is not always the best available option for achieving a goal. In fact, it is a costly option that requires time and dedication.

 

But it is also a key tool for advancing justice. Specifically, it allows communities to bring their demands to formal decision-making forums. In the case of Quintero and Puchuncaví, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the environmental problem and human rights violations affecting the area and has ordered the State to take urgent measures to correct the situation. Faced with a lack of ambition, or the direct violation of rights by States or companies, it has been the courts, at the request of those affected, that have compelled the government to take a stand on the side of responsibility.

 

Justice will come, if we give it the chance.

 

The town of Quintero and Puchuncaví deserves the opportunity to shine again and reach its full potential as a colorful coastal town and resort rich in natural resources.

 

The injustice inflicted upon the territory and its inhabitants must be acknowledged, establishing mechanisms for redress, ensuring non-repetition, and involving local people in the area's environmental recovery. It is also crucial that the energy transition be closely monitored to ensure it is not only a transition, but a just one.

 

All of this can be supported by the use of national and international law and litigation. Thus, as a civil society organization specializing in the use of law and litigation, AIDA will continue to be part of the tremendous multidisciplinary effort needed to help communities regain their agency—the power to decide and participate in the decisions that affect them, a power that was taken from them so many years ago.

 

Text written by Florencia Ortúzar Greene, director of the Climate Program of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

 

 

According to a report recently published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), climate litigation has doubled in recent years worldwide, establishing itself as a key, increasingly used tool to combat the climate crisis.

 

Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its sixth report that there is now “growing academic agreement that climate litigation has become a powerful force in climate governance.”

 

Climate litigation has truly become a permanent fixture in the toolbox used by activists to promote climate action. And it is children, youth, Indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, women, and local communities who have taken the lead in filing these lawsuits.

 

Climate litigation is inherently strategic , meaning it seeks broad societal changes that extend beyond a single case. This is typically achieved by advocating for the protection of rights or changes in public policy.

 

Thus, these lawsuits have served to hold governments, authorities, companies and other non-state actors accountable for the climate crisis before the courts, forcing them —among other things— to adopt, implement and progressively increase concrete measures to curb their emissions and mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis.

 

Just over a year ago, AIDA launched the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean , a website that compiles many of the region's climate litigation cases. The goal behind this initiative is to promote the exchange of diverse experiences to strengthen cases in support of the structural changes that are needed.

 

The Platform contains systematized and up-to-date information on legal actions filed before any jurisdictional authority (judicial, administrative, international, or autonomous). It includes the arguments supporting the cases, relating to the legal obligations of States and other actors in the face of the climate crisis.

 

But the Platform also includes cases that, while not directly related to the climate crisis, contribute to the search for climate justice on the continent.

 

And that's where the confusion arises and the question is born: What makes a dispute be considered climate-related?

 

The truth is, there's no universally accepted definition that allows us to distinguish between climate-related and non-climate-related disputes. It's a relatively new niche within environmental law, and like many things in life, its boundaries are blurred. Our planet is currently suffering from multiple crises, all interconnected and closely linked to environmental degradation. In this sense, it's almost always possible to connect environmental disputes, in one way or another, to climate change.

 

In any case, and with the aim of proposing a discussion on the matter, we dare to reflect here on possible definitions that will give us light and allow us to outline this concept that is gaining so much relevance.

 

An approach to the concept of climate litigation and its elements

 

One way to address the issue of what makes a lawsuit climate-related is to say that climate litigation is any litigation that contains arguments related to the climate crisis in its claim or in the judgment that resolves it.

 

Another approach relates to the objective of the litigation. Climate litigation can be defined as any litigation with an objective related to climate action. This implies a high degree of complexity and a significant variety of cases, many of which are intertwined. Thus, under this definition, cases such as the following would fall into this category:

 

- They seek to mitigate the polluting emissions that are causing global warming;

- They demand compliance (or an increase) by States with their international climate commitments;

- They promote adaptation measures to the inevitable effects of the climate crisis;

- They demand reparations for damages caused by the climate crisis;

- their aim is to hold companies accountable for their role in the problem;

- pursue regulatory or policy changes in favor of climate action;

- They demand transparency or accountability for government or corporate actions related to the climate crisis;

- They are asking financial institutions to raise their standards so that they take climate and the environment into account in their decisions;

- They seek to stop any project that could be harmful to the climate;

- their purpose is to protect ecosystems, especially those that function as natural carbon sinks;

- on some occasions, they seek to increase public awareness of the problems related to the climate crisis.

 

A living and constantly growing tool

 

As you can see, the variety of cases that can be labeled as climate litigation is enormous, almost as wide as the creativity of the people who are putting the tool to use.

 

Interestingly, despite being a relatively new concept, climate litigation is self-reinforcing. The more we use it, the more we put the courts to work examining the obligations of companies and states in support of climate action, the more we will generate jurisprudence, capabilities, and useful experience to continue moving forward.

 

National and international law is strengthened through the use of climate litigation, and it is important to keep it alive and constantly growing, as well as linking it to the responsibility that States and companies have to address the climate crisis, based on the universal human right to a healthy environment.

 

It's important to clarify that strategic litigation—whether climate-related or environmental—is difficult, complex, and costly. It requires time, resources, expertise, and dedication. Initiating climate litigation is not an easy decision to be taken lightly. Often, it's not the best option for achieving a specific objective.

 

But we can say with certainty that it is a key tool in climate action, one that has allowed the voices of highly vulnerable people and groups, often rendered invisible, to be heard in the forums where decisions are made and justice is served. It is also the final recourse in the institutional and legal arena.

 

Text written by Florencia Ortúzar Greene - director of the Climate Program of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

 

 

The Paris Agreement, in force since 2016, was emblematic for having set a common goal for the 195 countries that signed it, facilitating the union of efforts at the international level to deal with climate change, something that had not been achieved until then.

 

To achieve the famous goal — of “ensuring that the increase in the global average temperature remains well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared with pre-industrial levels” — Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, were created. These documents, which must be submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), contain each country's commitments to address the climate crisis. In them, countries freely declare, according to their circumstances, how they will reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how they will advance adaptation to the climate crisis.

 

The NDCs were first submitted in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, and since then they have been required to be updated every five years, with increasingly ambitious targets. The first update of these commitments occurred in 2020, and in 2025, countries must submit a new update of their NDCs, with targets for 2030 and 2035. This means we could see a significant number of updated commitments from all UNFCCC member countries (at least, that's what we expect), which opens up a range of opportunities for those seeking to promote greater ambition, as well as more and better climate action.

 

Taking advantage of the NDC update

 

Updating the NDCs presents an opportunity to drive more ambitious and effective climate action. On the one hand, the development of these updates must include participatory processes that allow people to be part of the country's proposed goals, incorporating key elements to raise ambition and ensure that climate actions are implementable and effective (although few countries manage to guarantee acceptable standards of participation).

 

In the case of AIDA, for example, we are always concerned with promoting the importance of designing climate action that respects nature and human rights, especially those of people and communities in vulnerable situations, and that incorporates a gender and intersectional perspective. This last point is crucial to ensuring a balanced distribution of burdens and benefits among the different people who make up societies and also to ensuring that women and historically excluded groups contribute their knowledge and experiences to the design of solutions. These participatory processes vary from country to country, and although they are often inadequate, it is worth paying attention to the possibilities they offer.

 

On the other hand, updated and published NDCs serve as instruments of pressure, as they contain commitments that countries undertake under the Paris Agreement, which, in the realm of international law, is legally binding , especially when the signatory countries recognize the binding nature of this instrument in their domestic legislation. This means that, as representatives of civil society, we can monitor what the country is doing in relation to what it has promised, evaluate its performance, and demand accountability from our governments.

 

Along these lines arises the possibility of litigating based on these NDCs, something that has been happening recently in some countries in the region and in the world, with interesting results.

 

The possibility of litigation, based on the NDCs

 

The region has already witnessed a couple of lawsuits based on NDCs. In one of them, filed in Mexico in 2021, Greenpeace brought a constitutional action against various Mexican authorities for the drafting and approval of the country's NDC, updated to 2020. The case was based on the claim that the right to a healthy environment and the principle of progressivity were being violated due to the lack of ambition in the commitments. The court handling the case denied the injunction, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the NDC violated the right in question. However, after multiple advocacy efforts by civil society organizations (see here and here for the civil society calls to action), the Mexican government submitted an updated NDC with higher GHG mitigation targets.

 

Meanwhile, in Brazil that same year, six activists representing two organizations filed a class-action lawsuit against the government for updating its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2020, which reduced, rather than increased, the country's ambition. In their lawsuit, they requested the suspension of the NDC's effects and its alignment with the progressivity requirement of the Paris Agreement. While awaiting a resolution to the case, the Brazilian government submitted a new update to its NDCs in 2023 that merely reaffirmed the commitments made in its initial NDC. The world's attention will be focused on Brazil's next NDC update.

 

The possibility of litigating based on the NDCs opens an interesting opportunity to leverage the Paris Agreement and demand more and better climate action. If this new round of updates fails to meet the necessary ambition to address the climate crisis, our environmental courts will be called upon to respond to the demands of civil society, which, through strategic litigation, will seek to establish precedents that will further strengthen the tool of climate litigation.

 

Meanwhile, stay informed of all the latest developments in this type of litigation in the region on the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean , where you will find information about many of the cases that are challenging authorities and corporations to take responsibility and contribute to solving the climate crisis.

 

Text written by Florencia Ortúzar Greene - director of the Climate Program of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

  

 

*Check out this blog with basic information about the NDCs and what the upcoming 2025 update process means.

 

**To learn more about the progress of each country's climate commitments, you can visit the UNFCCC website, which has a database of countries that have submitted their NDCs and the date they did so.

 

***Also check out the Climate Action Tracker project , which tracks government climate action by comparing countries' policies and NDCs with the goals of the Paris Agreement

 

****Finally, we recommend NDC LAC , a digital tool that provides information on the progress in the implementation and updating of NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean.

 

 

 

Global warming presents a bleak future , especially for generations yet to be born or those who have yet to experience most of their lives. This has motivated children and young people around the world to go to court to sue their governments for failing to meet their obligations to curb the climate crisis. They are currently plaintiffs in nearly a third of all climate litigation cases worldwide .

 

Latin America is no stranger to this global trend. In Colombia and Ecuador , these sectors of the population have successfully demanded the attention of their respective governments. In Argentina , Peru And in Mexico, similar cases await resolution.

 

Despite the diversity of national legal contexts, a common aspect in the cases is the determination of active legitimacy as an obstacle to overcome so that the courts can contribute to guaranteeing a stable climate for future generations.

 

Next, we will explore the tensions surrounding the determination of legitimate interest by taking the case of Youth vs. Government of Mexico for a sustainable policy in the electricity sector , one of the first in that country in which children and youth brought their concerns about the climate crisis before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), and the case of Youth vs. Colombia for deforestation in the Amazon , which was resolved by the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia.

 

Youth vs. Government of Mexico

 

In March 2021, more than 200 children and young people filed an indirect amparo lawsuit (a constitutional protection action in Mexico) against reforms to the Electricity Industry Law. They requested the District Court to suspend these modifications, arguing that they promote the use of fossil fuels, exacerbating the climate crisis and the deterioration of health. However, the court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It did not recognize a “differentiated grievance” for the plaintiffs compared to the rest of the population, considering that the negative effects of environmental degradation impact “unidentifiable groups.”

 

Consequently, in April of that year, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with a collegiate court. Their argument was that legitimate interest should be analyzed in light of the principles governing environmental matters, such as the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity . Then, in May, they requested the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) to hear the appeal. Among other issues, they asked the highest court to resolve the scope of the legitimate interest of children and young people in indirect amparo proceedings when challenging general regulations that affect the environment and climate change mitigation; and whether young people are in a special situation when claiming a violation of the human right to a healthy environment.

 

In June 2021, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to hear the case. On December 7 of that year, it ruled that the appeal was unfounded. Thus, with three votes in favor and two against, it upheld the decision to dismiss the amparo lawsuit. The draft opinion presented by Justice Alberto Pérez Dayán held that the young plaintiffs were not “direct” beneficiaries of the challenged regulations related to electricity distribution, given that they are neither sellers nor buyers of electricity. Furthermore, they were not placed in a legally relevant position with respect to the rest of society: the Court considered that their argument of being especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, exacerbated by the regulations, was not related to a direct cause of harm, but rather to an abstract and generic situation.

 

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that the right to a healthy environment does not grant special protection to younger generations, since —according to the Second Chamber— said right benefits both current generations “without exclusions or distinctions” and future generations.

 

In his dissenting opinion , Justice Javier Laynez Potisek expressed his disagreement with this ruling. He argued that the appropriate course of action would have been to overturn the district court's decision and allow the court to examine in its final judgment whether the young people had a legitimate interest. Laynez Potisek considered that the plaintiffs' claims were linked to the fight against climate change, a problem with characteristics "different" from those previously analyzed by the Supreme Court in environmental matters.

 

Youth vs. Colombia

In what was the first lawsuit concerning future generations and the climate crisis in Latin America, 25 young people from various departments of Colombia—supported by the organization Dejusticia—filed a tutela (constitutional protection action) in January 2018 against the national government for failing to uphold its commitment to protect the Amazon.

 

Similar to the case in Mexico, the plaintiffs invoked the principles of precaution and intergenerational equity to request a halt to deforestation. However, this action was dismissed at first instance by the Superior Court of Bogotá, which held that a collective interest, such as climate change mitigation, could not be safeguarded through a tutela action (since its scope is limited to the protection of individual rights).

 

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the government to implement an intergenerational pact to reduce deforestation in the Amazon. The Court determined that the collective interest of young people in protecting the Amazon rainforest was “closely linked” to their individual rights, such as the right to life and health. It highlighted this link in light of the principles of precaution and intergenerational equity.

 

The need for a broad legitimate interest

The cases presented demonstrate that protecting the rights of future generations in the face of the climate crisis is not without procedural complexities. While key principles such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity have been developed to address the temporal nature of environmental damage, the climate crisis demands jurisdictional mechanisms that allow these principles to be applied to the scope and urgency of the problem. Recognizing a broad legitimate interest is the first step in addressing it, as acknowledged in Article 8.3 of the Escazú Agreement.

 

Broad standing to sue does not suggest that courts should refrain from considering the underlying social, economic, and political aspects of the climate crisis. Rather, it implies that they should be willing to delve into the subject matter, as reflected in the case of Colombia and as expressed by Justice Laynez Potisek of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico in his dissenting opinion. In this regard, the Justice believes that there is even a risk in maintaining the inadmissibility of amparo claims in cases involving young people, as this could completely eliminate the opportunity for this particularly vulnerable sector to resort to legal mechanisms to challenge any measure that exacerbates climate change.

 

Only by overcoming procedural barriers that seem incompatible with the urgency and scope of the challenge will the judicial sphere be able to adopt a constructive role in ensuring a stable climate for future generations.

 

 

Text written by Thalia Viveros Uehara, Aranza Montero Guizar and Daniel Iglesias Márquez, advisors of the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico jurisdiction

 

 

Amicus curiae is a Latin expression that literally translates as " friend of the court." It is also a legal figure that takes the form of a legal brief and can be a valuable tool for the better resolution of cases of public interest, such as environmental or climate litigation. How? We explain below.

 

The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) defines amicus curiae as a “natural or legal person who, without being a party or third party in a lawsuit, voluntarily intervenes before a court to collaborate with it by providing objective information.” The concept originates from Anglo-Saxon law and is recognized by several international human rights monitoring bodies.  

 

Amicus curiae briefs allow any individual, group, or organization to communicate directly with those who administer justice through legal briefs. While not expert reports, amicus briefs can provide a wide range of specific and valuable legal and technical-scientific information. For this reason, they are widely recognized in international and national law, and are becoming increasingly important as strategic instruments in support of human rights.

 

Its content and purpose are broad. An amicus brief can be used to provide technical, legal, and/or scientific data and premises with the intention of offering new arguments or reinforcing existing ones for the resolution of a matter, offering a legal opinion or suggestion, providing information about a case, or warning about the potential effects of a decision. The possibilities are not limited. Often, those administering justice obtain information from these briefs that they would not have been able to access otherwise, allowing them to broaden their perspectives on the issues and arguments debated in the proceedings.

 

For all the reasons mentioned above, amicus curiae help to improve the level of transparency and participation in judicial processes, raise the level of discussions and open up the debate on the subject matter in dispute, especially in those cases where the public interest is involved or there is a social significance that goes beyond the particularities of the specific case .

 

The formalities for submitting amicus curiae briefs depend specifically on the legal system of the country or international body where the case is being heard. However, it's important to remember that, in most cases, amicus curiae briefs are not binding or mandatory. The courts themselves decide whether and how to consider them. It's also worth noting that anyone submitting such a brief is not a party to the proceedings and does not enjoy the procedural rights associated with parties, and their submission does not incur any legal costs or fees.

 

Amicus curiae in the international arena

 

Amicus curiae briefs are widely recognized and used in international courts, especially those responsible for the protection of human rights, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights, or the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization.

 

In the Inter-American Human Rights System, matters relating to amicus briefs are regulated in Articles 2, 44 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which detail the form of presentation and the cases in which it is appropriate.

 

Precisely in relation to the recent request for advisory opinion OC-32 on climate emergency and human rights, presented by the States of Chile and Colombia, the IACHR received the largest number of amicus curiae in its history with more than 250 written observations .

 

What is the contribution of amicus curiae to climate litigation?

 

Climate litigation is often complex, requiring highly specific technical and scientific data to understand and demonstrate the social and environmental impacts caused by activities or omissions that result from, or could cause, the increase in global temperature. Therefore, the role of amicus curiae briefs in climate litigation is increasingly important. Through them, valuable information can be presented in a more direct, easy, and affordable way, even reducing costs and workload for the parties involved in the litigation.

 

Thus, these documents can become very useful tools for explaining complex scenarios to those who administer justice (who may not have such specialized knowledge of climate issues) in a simple and concise way, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the causes and effects of socio-environmental conflicts. At the same time, they are a powerful means for the voices of different peoples, communities, and vulnerable groups to be heard and valued in diverse ways. Therein lies the importance and significance of this legal instrument.

 

As mentioned, a clear example of the impact amicus curiae briefs can have on achieving climate justice is the ongoing process of Advisory Opinion OC-32 being conducted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The sheer number of amicus briefs submitted in this process represents an enormous contribution to climate justice in the Americas. This is due to the significant participation of diverse actors (Indigenous peoples and communities, youth and women's movements, civil society organizations, academic institutions, etc.) who have come together to represent different perspectives and provide specialized information regarding the impacts of the climate crisis and the obligations of the States of the Americas to protect people in this context of global emergency.

 

At the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean, we have dedicated a section to the amicus curiae briefs that different actors from the region presented to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within the framework of Advisory Opinion OC-32. In this section, you can consult a summary of some of these briefs, valuable contributions that emphasize the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on indigenous peoples, women, children, populations with diverse gender orientations and identities, and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs.

 

Text written by Gisselle García Maning - lawyer for the Climate Program of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

 

 

Humanity faces an urgent task: transforming energy systems to generate power without continuing to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and pollutants. This is a scientifically proven fact. If we fail to do so, our planet will no longer be a safe haven for humanity or many other species.

 

The problem is that the necessary transition is far from simple. Besides the difficulty of breaking our dependence on the fossil fuels that have dominated us for centuries, not just any transition will do. It's not simply a matter of ceasing to burn these fuels; we must consider many other factors, even beyond energy, to move away from a development model that for centuries has divided humanity into winners and losers, while also violating human rights.

 

So what is a Just Transition?

 

There is currently no single concept of what constitutes a just energy transition. At AIDA, we believe that, to be just, the transition must be equitable and inclusive, recognizing that the impacts of climate change and the necessary transition are not evenly distributed. Thus, certain groups—such as those working in traditional energy sectors and/or marginalized communities—may be disproportionately affected.

 

To understand the problem, it's worth recognizing that humanity is currently facing several interconnected crises that affect people's lives and well-being, especially those in the most vulnerable situations. The climate emergency, pollution, biodiversity loss, global pandemics, and democratic crises are just some of them. And at the heart of it all is social inequality, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor that creates disparities in every aspect of life, including access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.

 

These crises are interconnected and reinforce each other. Responses to one can help resolve others, but they can also worsen them.

 

For example, when the transition to clean energy sources not only helps combat climate change but also reduces air pollution and improves public health, we are solving two problems at once. A contrasting example occurs when a rapid and uncontrolled transition to electric mobility results in the aggressive extraction of rare minerals like lithium, which comes from fragile ecosystems on which local communities depend.

 

So, where do we begin?

 

To ensure a just transition, we must be guided by the principles of justice, equity, and inclusion, as well as guarantee that the most vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected.

 

As Naomi Klein stated in her book This Changes Everything , to address the climate crisis we must understand that climate change is not only an environmental problem, but also a human rights issue. A just energy transition requires not only ending the burning of fossil fuels, but also addressing economic inequality, incorporating a gender perspective, strengthening social safety nets, protecting workers' rights, respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples, empowering communities to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and providing reparations to those affected by the current economic and energy model.

 

And what role can litigation play?

 

Litigation is already moving in step with the dilemmas of the energy transition. Thus, we have seen an increase in lawsuits that appear to run counter to the energy transition, such as claims challenging renewable energy generation projects or regulations that favor the transition, or that otherwise hinder it. But can we say that these are always “regressive” lawsuits?

 

A lawsuit challenging the environmental permit for a wind power generation project might be hindering the transition, but it isn't necessarily regressive. If, for example, it's a megaproject undertaken by a transnational corporation that will export all the energy generated without benefiting local communities, and if it also intends to be located on Indigenous lands without local participation, then it's a project geared toward an "unjust transition" that doesn't serve our needs because it reinforces the very model that has led us down the wrong path.

 

This type of case is addressed in the report "Litigation for Just Transition in Latin America ," published in January 2023 by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, and translated into Spanish by AIDA.

 

The report questions the purpose of just transition litigation, asking whether it fosters or, conversely, obstructs a climate-resilient energy transition. In this regard, its authors conclude that such litigation cannot be categorized as either regressive or non-regressive in relation to the transition. As such, they consider just transition litigation to be a new category of climate litigation, with its own distinct and unique foundations.

 

This topic allows us to reflect on the complexity of the long-awaited transition. Faced with these kinds of dilemmas, at AIDA we generally choose to analyze each case individually, without adhering to a dogmatic position. But one constant, and in that sense a valuable starting point, is that everything undertaken in favor of the energy transition—whether projects, policies, or actions—must have a strong and decisive focus on the environment, human rights, and gender equality. Without these, there is no justice; and without justice, there is no remedy or solution.

 

So we believe that litigation does have a role, not only in making the transition happen, but also in making it fair.

 

The urgent need to change our energy systems is also an opportunity to build a new system that, unlike the one that reigns today, unites us and is for all people and living beings on the planet.

 

We will then continue to use the tool of litigation to challenge transition attempts that seek to embroil us in more of the same.

 

Text written by Florencia Ortúzar Greene - director of the Climate Program of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

 

 

The Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina ordered the Argentine State, as well as the governments of the provinces of Jujuy and Salta, to suspend the exploration and exploitation of lithium and borate in the Salinas Grandes Basin, in addition to carrying out joint environmental management to prevent the irreversible damage that these mining activities would cause in the water system shared by both provinces.

 

The ruling, issued in March 2023, responds to a constitutional protection action filed by Indigenous communities of the Tres Pozos Sanctuary and by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN). The action argues that the communities' right to free, prior, and informed consent was violated; as was their right to access information; the rights of environmental human rights defenders; and the principle of non-regression contained in the Escazú Agreement; as well as the infringement of international and national environmental provisions.

 

The highest court considered the principles of in dubio pro natura and in dubio pro agua, as well as the principle of non-regression, to make a decision favorable to the communities in which it provides for solid protection of threatened ecosystems, including an intergenerational approach and the rights of future generations.

 

More information here