CDMX Mexico
In 2021, a group of 214 young people filed an injunction against the reform to the Electricity Industry Law, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on March 9, 2021. The main argument of the injunction is that the Mexican State is constitutionally obligated to carry out actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The plaintiffs argued that the challenged regulations and omissions violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment, specifically the right to a safe climate. They maintain that the energy transition in the electricity sector is essential for the exercise of the right to a safe climate and a necessary condition for Mexico to fulfill its international commitments in this area. Therefore, they requested that the Federal Judiciary declare the challenged regulations unconstitutional and compel the responsible authorities to comply with their constitutional obligations regarding the energy transition and climate change mitigation policies.
The case was dismissed by a federal court in March 2021. In April 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the dismissal, requesting that a higher court decide the case. In May 2021, they asked the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to resolve the appeal.
The legal question raised by the appeal was the determination of the scope of legitimate interest when dealing with young people who collectively demand violations of the right to a healthy environment, in particular the right to a safe climate.
In December 2022, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved the matter, reaffirming its initial decision to reject the amparo lawsuit. The ruling stated that the plaintiffs were not direct beneficiaries of the challenged regulations related to electricity distribution, as they were neither sellers nor buyers of electricity. Furthermore, it could not be demonstrated that they were in a legally relevant situation compared to the rest of society, since the argument that young people are especially susceptible to the effects of climate change was considered to relate not to a direct impact, but to an abstract and general situation. The Court concluded that the right to a healthy environment does not provide special protection to younger generations, as this right benefits all present ("without exclusions or distinctions") and future generations.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Javier Laynez Potisek expressed his disagreement with the ruling. He argued that the appropriate course of action would have been to overturn the lower court's decision and allow the court to examine in its final judgment whether the minors had a legitimate interest.
It is important to note that on November 30, 2022, a group of eight recognized civil society organizations dedicated to defending the right to a healthy environment filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing that the legitimate interest of young people should be recognized, as they have a distinct interest in defending their right to a healthy environment in the face of unambitious or regressive climate policies. However, the amicus brief's arguments were not considered in the final ruling of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the Mexican legal system does not provide an appeal against Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, all domestic remedies were exhausted before resorting to this procedure. Following the Supreme Court's decision in July 2023, eight of the original petitioners filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting that the Commission take up the case. The petition was based on the grounds that the Mexican State violated the right to a healthy environment, established in Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in conjunction with Articles 26 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the principle of progressivity and non-regression established in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and the right of access to judicial guarantees contained in Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the right to judicial protection, contained in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The request was dismissed on December 26, 2023.
Important note: This amparo lawsuit is related to another amparo lawsuit filed by 5 civil associations supported by more than 20 groups. Both lawsuits are part of the same litigation strategy.
The lawsuit, based on available scientific information, explains what climate change is and its consequences for Mexico and for young people, given their particular vulnerability to this phenomenon. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that Mexico's geographical characteristics, coupled with significant inequality and high rates of poverty and extreme poverty, make it a country particularly vulnerable to the serious consequences of global warming.
It is worth noting that the lawsuit refers to international treaties that the Mexican State has signed and ratified, which establish a set of specific obligations and goals that Mexico should fulfill in terms of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Such is the case, for example, of Mexico's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), in which it commits to a 22% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.
In its ruling, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) dismissed the young people's grievance regarding their special vulnerability to climate change, maintaining that they did not present a relevant legal harm caused by the regulation in question, and therefore, they were not recognized as having a legitimate interest. The Court argued that the alleged harm was actually abstract and generic, and did not grant the young people any special protection or prerogative under the right to a healthy environment, a right that, according to this Chamber, benefits all present and future generations without distinction.
- 214 young people between the ages of 15 and 28 who live in Mexico City.
- Congress of the Union.
- President of the United Mexican States.
Young people will suffer the negative effects of climate change the longest. Furthermore, they are making the most important decisions of their lives (partners, careers, children, jobs, etc.). Unlike older generations, they must make these fundamental decisions amidst the uncertainty and threats posed by rising global temperatures and the lack of decisive action from responsible authorities to prevent them.
Furthermore, the complainants are residents of Mexico City and according to the Special Climate Change Program 2014-2018, 12.5% of the most vulnerable municipalities in the country are in Mexico City.
The report "Mexico City's Vision addresses international, national and local climate policy up to 2015" indicates that, in the area of health, the hypothetical scenario of an increase of 1ºC to 2ºC in the average annual temperature of the City would increase the spread of vector-borne diseases, in addition to other health consequences, such as the increase in the incidence of allergic reactions and asthma due to the dispersion of allergens.
Regarding water resources, the Mexico City Government has estimated that by 2050 there will be a reduction in the natural availability of water due to climate change of between 13-17% for the City.
Regarding the biological diversity of Mexico City, it is predicted that by 2050 there will be a reduction in oyamel, pine-alive, pine and mountain mesolo forests; also a reduction in grassland areas and species.
Standards
- Paris Agreement.
- American Convention on Human Rights (“Pact of San José de Costa Rica”).
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- Kyoto Protocol.
- Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador).
- United Nations Declaration.
- Rio Declaration.
- Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement).
- Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
- General Law on Climate Change.
- Energy Transition Law.
- Electricity Industry Law.
Beginning
- In dubio pro actione.
- Sustainable development.
- Caution.
- Progressiveness.
- Best interests of minors.
- Intergenerational equity .