Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al.

Sixteen children filed a petition alleging that five countries - Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey - had violated their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by making insufficient cuts to GHG emissions. Petitioners claim that the rights to life, health, prioritization of the child's best interest, and cultural rights have been violated. All defendants have ratified the convention and signed the Paris Agreement but failed to make or keep commitments that align with keeping temperature rise under two degrees Celsius.

Background
The petitioners are suing under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, claiming that climate change has infringed on their rights under this convention, and further alleging that the respondent nations are culpable. This includes concerns that the level of GHG emissions may generate extreme climate events that will risk the lives of children around the world, as well as specific examples of cultural practices in Sweden and the Marshall Islands that have been hampered by climate change. They are seeking precautionary, declaratory, and remedial relief from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in the form of recognition of the climate crisis’s impact on children, an admission that the respondent nations have failed to meet the agreed standards, and recommendations regarding mitigation measures going forward.

Respondents contend that 1) the Committee lacks jurisdiction; 2) the petition is ill-founded or unsubstantiated; and 3) petitioners have not exhausted domestic remedies. On May 4, 2020, the petitioners filed a reply asserting that the petition is admissible. They argue that they have jurisdiction because children are impacted in the territory of the respondent states, the issue is well-founded because the harm of climate change is present and worsening, and that domestic remedies are fruitless in this global crisis.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Paris Agreement
 * UN Convention of the Rights of the Child
 * Article 6: Right to Life
 * Article 24: Right to Health
 * Article 30: Right to Culture

Status
The case is currently pending. The Committee on the Rights of the Child must first determine if the petition is actionable before making any of the recommendations desired by the petitioner. Whether it is actionable is disputed by the respondent nations on the basis of jurisdiction, whether the argument is well-founded, timeliness, and exhaustion of remedies.

Takeaways
This suit stands to define the legitimacy of the Paris Agreement and the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child in the face of state authorities effectively ignoring both. If the petitioners succeed, the link between climate change and the rights of children would be codified by the UN. It may also lead to policy changes in those high pollution countries. Lastly, this decision would put pressure on countries that did not sign the Convention, such as the United States, to adjust their climate policy in the interest of children’s rights.

Links

 * Sabin Center Database
 * Grantham Research Institute
 * Children Vs Climate Crisis case website
 * Petition
 * Petitoner's Reply to Admissability