Author: Corina Heri

Associate professor, HYDR/Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Categories
2020 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Ireland Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life

Friends of the Irish Environment v. Government of Ireland

Summary:
In this case, brought before the Irish Supreme Court by the environmental activist group Friends of the Irish Environment, the Supreme Court quashed the Irish National Mitigation Plan of 2017 on the grounds that it was incompatible with the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the 2015 Climate Act). The Supreme Court ordered the creation of a new, Climate Act-compliant plan.

Facts:
The case was premised on evidence that Ireland was set to miss its 2030 mitigation targets by a substantial degree.

Domestic instances:
The applicant’s claim was unsuccessful before the High Court. After the High Court proceedings were concluded, the Irish Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, without first seizing the Court of Appeal with the case. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted the “general public and legal importance” of the case, and the fact that the seriousness of climate change, the climate science, and the emissions at stake were not contested.

Merits:
In a unanimous seven-judge judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on 31 July 2020, the Supreme Court found that the Mitigation Plan did not reach the level of detail required under the 2015 Climate Act and was ultra vires that Act.

However, the judges did not allow the applicants’ rights-based arguments. Because Friends of the Irish Environment was a corporate entity, it did not enjoy the right to life or bodily integrity under the ECHR and the Irish Constitution, and lacked standing to bring these claims. Chief Justice Clarke CJ accepted that constitutional rights could be engaged in environmental cases, but held that the Irish Constitution does not contain a right to a healthy environment.

Date of judgment:
31 July 2020

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Ireland, Friends of the Irish Environment v. The Government of Ireland and Others, Judgment of 31 July 2020, [2020] IESC 49.

Further reading:
Orla Kelleher, ‘The Supreme Court of Ireland’s decision in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland (“Climate Case Ireland”)’ in EJIL Talk!, 9 September 2020.

The full text of the judgment is available here.

Categories
2020 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Standing/admissibility United States of America

Juliana et al. v. USA et al.

Summary:
On 12 August 2015, the Juliana v. the United States case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The 21 youth plaintiffs in this case, who were represented by the NGO “Our Children’s Trust”, asserted that the government had violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property through its climate change-causing actions. Among other things, they argued that they had suffered psychological harms, damage to property, impairment to their recreational interests, and that their medical conditions had been exacerbated by the effects of climate change. They sought declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to phase out fossil fuels. Moreover, they stated that the government had failed to protect essential public trust resources by encouraging and permitting the combustion of fossil fuels. After extensive proceedings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the case in 2024, and the US Supreme Court refused to grant certoriari in March 2025, effectively ending the case.

The Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision:
The Government filed a large number of motions to stay or deny these procedings. However, U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken declined to dismiss the lawsuit. She ruled that access to a clean environment constitutes a fundamental right. Judge Aiken’s judgment was reversed by a Ninth Circuit Panel on 17 January 2020 due to the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the gravity of the evidence on the plaintiffs’s injuries from climate change. The panel of judges also recognized the existence of harms to the applicants, and the plausibility of arguing that these harms had been caused by climate change. Nevertheless, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ requested remedies should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches and not by the courts. As a result, they “[r]eluctantly” held that “such relief is beyond [their] constitutional power.”

One of the three judges affirmed the plaintiff’s constitutional climate rights in a dissent, arguing that the case sought to enforce the US Constitution’s most basic principle: “that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.” Accordingly, she held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the government’s conduct, and had presented sufficient evidence to press their constitutional rights claims at trial.

Further proceedings:
On 9 March 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint and adjust the remedy sought in the case. After settlement talks ended without resolution in November 2021, and Judge Aiken granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in June 2023. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s failure to address climate change violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments and the Public Trust Doctrine. The amended complaint requested the court to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out policies, practices that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms the plaintiffs.

In December 2023, the court partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing claims related to the right to a climate system capable of sustaining life under the Due Process Clause and the Public Trust Doctrine to proceed. However, in February 2024, the government filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, which was granted by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2024. This order required the district court to dismiss the case and preclude any further amendments. Subsequently, the district court dismissed the case.

These were complex proceedings, with several intermediate filings and actions. However, on 24 March 2025, the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certoriari. The plaintiffs had sought review of the order of the Ninth Circuit of May 2024, which granted the government’s request for a writ of mandamus and ordered the district court to dismiss the case. At the time of writing, this seems to have effectively ended the case.

Proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
On 23 September 2025, the NGO Our Children’s Trust announced that it had filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging climate-related violations of human rights by the government of the United States of America on behalf of some of the plaintiffs in the present case. A separate database entry on those proceedings can be found here.

Further reading:
The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s order on interlocutory appeal is available here.

Documents on the proceedings before the Supreme Court can be found here.

For scholarly comment on this case, see among others:

  • Melissa Powers, ‘Juliana v United States: The next frontier in US climate mitigation?’ 27 RECIEL 199 (2018).
  • William Montgomery, ‘Juliana v. United States: The Ninth Circuit’s Opening Salvo for a New Era of Climate Litigation’, 34 Tul. Env’t L.J. 341 (2021).
  • Nathanial Levy, ‘Juliana and the Political Generativity of Climate Litigation’, 43 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 479 (2019).
  • Chloe N. Kempf, ‘Why Did So Many Do So Little? Movement Building and Climate Change Litigation in the Time of Juliana v. United States‘, 99 Tex. L. Rev. 1005 (2020-2021).

Suggested citation:
Juliana and Others v. the United States and Others, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020).

Last updated:
15 January 2026.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands

Summary:
This case, brought in 2013 by the Urgenda foundation and hundreds of Dutch citizens against the Netherlands, has become the leading climate and human rights judgment, and served as inspiration for similar litigation around the world. The final judgment in this case was issued in 2019, and in this case the domestic courts not only found that the Dutch climate policy had violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the rights to life and respect for private and family life, respectively), but also issued an injunction requiring greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Remedies ordered:
District Court of The Hague had previously ruled that the government was obligated to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 in comparison to 1990 levels. The District Court’s decision was appealed by the State. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision on 9 October 2018. After the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme court ruled in favour of Urgenda and held that the government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change.

Date of final domestic judgment:
20 December 2019

More on this case:
For the final judgment in Dutch, click here.

For the summary provided by the Supreme Court (English), click here.

Recommended reading:
Ingrid Leijten, ‘Human Rights v. Insufficient Climate Action: The Urgenda Case’ 37(2) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2019)

Benoit Mayer, ‘The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: Ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague (9 October 2018)’ 8(1) Transnational Environmental Law (2019), 167-192.

Maiko Meguro, ‘State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation’ 114(4) American Journal of International Law (2020), 729-735.

Suggested citation:
Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 20 December 2019, No. 19/00135, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006.

Categories
2019 Climate-induced displacement Human Rights Committee New Zealand Non-refoulement Prohibition of torture Right to life

Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand

Summary:

The applicant submitted that New Zealand had violated his right to life under the ICCPR by removing him to Kiribati, an island state where, he submitted, the situation was becoming increasingly unstable and precarious due to sea level rise caused by global warming. The HRC accepted the claim that sea level rise and climate change-related harms can trigger non-refoulement obligations, but found that there is still time to take measures to protect the population of Kiribati.

Admissibility:

Concerning the imminence of the risk faced, the Committee noted that the author was not alleging a hypothetical future harm, but a real predicament caused by a lack of potable water and employment possibilities, and a threat of serious violence caused by land disputes. The author had sufficiently demonstrated, for the purpose of admissibility, the existence of a real risk of harm to his right to life, given the impact of climate change and associated sea level rise on the habitability of Kiribati and on the security situation on the islands.

Merits:

The HRC found that environmental degradation can compromise the effective enjoyment of the right to life, and if severe it can violate that right. The Committee accepted the author’s claim that sea level rise is likely to render Kiribati uninhabitable. Without robust national and international efforts, the effects of climate change in receiving States may expose individuals to a violation of articles 6 or 7 ICCPR, thereby triggering the non-refoulement obligations of sending States. However, it noted that the time frame of 10 to 15 years, as suggested by the author, could allow for intervening acts by Kiribati, with the assistance of the international community, to take affirmative measures to protect and, where necessary, relocate its population.

Remedies ordered:

None

Separate opinions:

Yes

Implementation measures taken:

N/A

Date:

24 October 2019

Status of case:

final

Suggested case citation:

Human Rights Committee, Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, No. 2728/2016, Communication of 24 October 2019.

Full text:

For the full-text of the decision in the case, click here.

Further reading:

Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore, ‘Teitiota v New Zealand: A Step Forward in the Protection of Climate Refugees under International Human Rights Law?’ Oxford Human Rights Hub, 28th January 2020, available here.

Keywords:

climate refugees, affectedness, non-refoulement

    Categories
    2018 Colombia Domestic court

    DeJusticia (Rodríguez Peña and others) v. Colombia

    Summary:
    On 5 April 2018, the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice ordered the protection of the Colombian Amazon from deforestation, ruling in favor of a group of 25 children and young people who had, with the support of advocacy organisation Dejusticia, contested the Colombian government’s failure to protect their rights to life, health and to a healthy environment with a tutela action. In its ruling, the Supreme Court also recognized the Amazon rainforest as a subject of rights.

    Facts:
    The applicants in this case were 25 children and young people, aged between 7 and 25 years. They submitted that, in their lifetimes, the average temperature in Colombia is expected to increase by between 1.6°C and 2.14°C. They invoked the Paris Agreement and domestic law no. 1753 of 2015, which, they argued, require the government to reduce deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, including a reduction to net zero of the rate of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon by 2020. Citing ongoing deforestation and the failure to reduce deforestation, they detailed the projected effects of that deforestation for local ecosystems and the wider environment.

    Admissibility:
    The District Court that previously examined this case had found that a tutela action was not appropriate to this action because of the collective nature of the issue at hand. However, the Supreme Court found that a tutela can be filed where there is a connection between the violation of collective and individual rights if the person filing the tutela is directly affected, the violation of rights at stake is not hypothetical but clearly demonstrated, and the action sought is oriented towards restoring individual rights, and not collective ones.

    Key findings:
    The Supreme Court found that the fundamental rights to life, health, the minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are connected to and dependent on the environment and healthy ecosystems. It held that the ongoing and increasing deterioration of the natural environment has severe impacts on current and future life and on fundamental rights. It also cited the decreasing ability to exercise the fundamental rights to water, clean air, and a healthy environment.

    The Court noted that imminent dangers, such as rising temperatures, polar thawing, species extinction, and meteorological events and natural disasters had been clearly demonstrated. It considered that ecosystems are currently being exposed to existential threats that will lead to the exhaustion of natural resources, increasing difficulties for human subsistence and the pollution and change of the environment. It held that humanity is principally responsible for this scenario, because its hegemonic position on the planet has led to the adoption of an anthropocentric and self-centred model, with characteristic features that are detrimental to environmental stability (“la humanidad es la principal responsable de este escenario, su posición hegemónica planetaria llevo a la adoptación de un modelo antropocéntrico y egoísta, cuyos rasgos característicos son nocivos para la estabilidad ambiental“). These characteristics are i) excessive demographic growth; ii) an expedited approach to development guided by consumerism and existing political-economic systems; and iii) the excessive exploitation of natural resources.

    The Court invoked the concept of social justice, and held that the protection of fundamental rights not only involves the individual, but also the “other.” This includes people in other nations as well as animal and plant species and future generations. In particular, it held that the environmental rights of future generations are based on the (i) ethical duty of intra-species solidarity and (ii) the intrinsic value of nature. Regarding the environmental rights of future generations, the Court discussed future violations by present-day omission, and the need to limit present generations’ freedom of action to ensure care and stewardship for natural resources and the future world.

    Citing various international human rights and climate change instruments, the Court considered that the conservation of the Amazon is a national and global obligation, calling it the main environmental axis of the planet and the “lung of the world” (p. 30 of the judgment). It considered that the disputed policies lead to deforestation in the Amazon, causing short, medium, and long term imminent and serious damage to the applicants in the tutela action and to all inhabitants of Colombia, both present and future, because it leads to rampant carbon dioxide emissions and threatens native flora and fauna.

    Invoking the principles of precaution, intergenerational equity, and solidarity, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no doubt that there is a risk of damage, given that the increase in GHG emissions resulting from deforestation in the Amazon rainforest would lead to estimated increases in Colombia’s temperature of up to 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

    The principle of solidarity meant that the Colombian State had a duty and shared responsibility to stop the causes of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation in the Amazon. This required the adoption of immediate mitigation measures to protect the right to a healthy environment.

    Leaving a concrete response to the relevant authorities, the Supreme Court highlighted the urgent need to adopt mitigation and corrective measures to combat illegal agriculture and mining; establish an active state presence post-conflict; prevent and mitigate fires, deforestation, and the expansion of agriculture in the region; address the consequences of large constructing projects, property titling and mining concessions; address the expansion of large-scale farming; preserve this important ecosystem; redress the lack of scientific calculations concerning the release of tons of carbon through burning and the loss of biomass; and confront climate change related to the destruction of the Amazon.

    Noting that the State had to date failed to take effective measures in this regard, the Court went on to declare that the Colombian Amazon was a subject of rights, and was per se entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration.

    Remedies:
    The Supreme Court held that the Colombian government had four months to present an action plan to reduce deforestation in the Amazon region.

    Within five months, the Government was furthermore ordered to formulate an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon, with the active participation of the plaintiffs, affected communities, scientific organizations, environmental research groups, and interested population in general. This was to include measures aimed at reducing deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.

    It also ordered all municipalities in the Colombian Amazon, within the five months, to update and implement Land Management Plans, including action plans to reduce deforestation to zero where appropriate.

    Within forty-eight hours, the Government was ordered to intensify deforestation mitigation measures.

    Forum:
    Supreme Court of Colombia

    Date of decision:
    5 April 2018

    See also:
    The original submission of DeJusticia (in Spanish) is available here.

    The Supreme Court’s judgment (in Spanish) is available here and for download below.

    STC4360-2018-2018-00319-011Download

    Suggested citation:
    Supreme Court of Colombia, DeJusticia (Rodríguez Peña and others) v. Colombia, Judgment of 5 April 2018, STC4360-2018, No. 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01, Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona (reporting judge).

    Categories
    Inter-American Human Rights System Right to a healthy environment

    The IACtHR’s 2017 Advisory Opinion on the Right to a Healthy Environment

    Summary:
    In this advisory opinion, requested by Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognized that the right to a healthy environment is a human right for a first time, and affirmed that human rights are dependent on a healthy environment. The Court stated that the adverse effects of climate change, as well as environmental degradation, have an adverse effect on human rights. The advisory opinion finds that States have an obligation to take measures to prevent environmental harms both within their borders, and in transboundary scenarios and thus extraterritorially.

    While the right to a healthy environment had previously been recognized in Article 11 of the Protocol of San Salvador, this right is not subject to individual petition. In its advisory opinion, the Court recognized a justiciable right to a healthy environment by finding that this right is part of the right to progressive development in Article 26 of the American Convention. This includes protection of the environment as such, with the Court noting in para. 62 of its advisory opinion that “as an autonomous right, the right to a healthy environment, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers and seas, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of the certainty or evidence of a risk to individuals.”

    In addition, the Court engaged with the obligations of the State with regard to the principles of prevention, and precaution, duties of cooperation and the procedural rights derived from obligations to respect and to ensure human rights.

    Date:
    15 November 2017.

    Full text:
    Click here to read the full text of the advisory opinion.

    Suggested citation:
    IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on the Right to a Healthy Environment of 15 November 2017.

    Recommended reading:
    For more on this advisory opinion, see for example:

    Maria Antonia Tigre and Natalia Urzola, ‘The 2017 Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion: changing the paradigm for international environmental law in the Anthropocene’, 12(1) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment (2021), available here.

    Categories
    2018 Adaptation Domestic court Farming Human dignity Pakistan Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to life

    Leghari v. Pakistan

    Summary:
    In Leghari v. Pakistan, Asghar Leghari, whose family owns a farm in the Punjab province of Pakistan, claimed that his fundamental rights, including the right to life, the right to a healthy environment and human dignity, had been violated by the failure to take action against climate change, which was already impacting Pakistan in the form of floods and other climactic changes. The High Court of Lahore granted his claims in 2015, finding that the government had failed to implement its own Climate Change Policy and the corresponding implementation framework. The Court created a Climate Change Commission to monitor the government’s response.

    Arguments by the applicant:
    The applicant submitted that the domestic National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for its implementation had not been implemented. Absent strategies to transition to heat resilient crops or to conserve water, he argued, he would not be able to sustain his livelihood as a farmer. He submitted that this inaction had violated his fundamental rights, in particular, Article 9 (right to life, including the right to a healthy and clean environment) and Article 14 (human dignity) of the Constitution, along with the constitutional principles of social and economic justice. In doing so, he also invoked the principles of public trust, sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity. The most immediate and serious threat to Pakistan, he argued, concerned water, food and energy security.

    Findings:
    The High Court of Lahore granted Mr. Leghari’s claims on 4 September 2015, finding that “the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens.” It ordered the government to nominate “climate change focal persons” to help ensure the implementation of the domestic legal Framework and to identify action points. To monitor the government’s progress, it also created a Climate Change Commission made up of government representatives, NGOs, and technical experts. A supplemental decision of 14 September 2015 nominated 21 Commission members and granted this body various powers. On 25 January 2018, the Court considered a report from the Climate Change Committee finding that, until January 2017, 66% of the Framework for Implementation Climate Change Policy’s priority actions had been implemented. The Court accordingly dissolved the Climate Change Commission, creating a Standing Committee on Climate Change in its place.

    In the 2018 judgment, the Court considered the need for environmental, climate and water justice, and the need for both mitigation and, in the specific case of Pakistan, adaptation measures in response to climate change. It noted that “we have to move on. The existing environmental jurisprudence has to be fashioned to meet the needs of something more urgent and overpowering i.e., Climate Change.” (para. 12). It held, too, that “[f]rom Environmental Justice, which was largely localized and limited to our own ecosystems and biodiversity, we have moved on to Climate Justice.” (para. 20).

    Further reading:
    Birsha Ohdedar, ‘Climate Change Litigation in India and Pakistan: Analyzing Opportunities and Challenges’, in Ivano Alogna, Christine Bakker, and Jean-Pierre Gauci (eds), Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives (Brill | Nijhoff 2021), 103-123,  https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004447615_006.

    Ivan Mark Ladores, ‘In the Name of Climate Change: How Leghari v Federation of Pakistan is Instrumental to the Pursuit of the Right to Life in the Philippines’, 5(2) Groningen Journal of International Law (2017), https://doi.org/10.21827/5a6af9f49574a.

    Emily Barritt and Boitumelo Sediti, ‘The Symbolic Value of Leghari v Federation of Pakistan: Climate Change Adjudication in the Global South’ 30(2) King’s Law Journal (2019) 203-210, 10.1080/09615768.2019.1648370.

    Suggested citation:
    Lahore High Court, Asghar Leghari v. Pakistan, Case W.P. No. 25501/2015, Judgment of 25 January 2018.

    Categories
    2014 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Climate-induced displacement Domestic court New Zealand Sea-level rise

    AD (Tuvalu) v. New Zealand

    Summary:
    A family from Tuvalu appealed the decision to deport them from New Zealand, arguing that they would be at risk of suffering the adverse impacts of climate change — including the adverse effects of natural disasters — and socio-economic deprivation. Unlike in the domestic proceedings in the Teitiota case (domestically known as the AF (Kiribati) case), which made its way before the UN Human Rights Committee after leave to stay was refused, the applicants in this case received leave to remain in New Zealand on the basis of the exceptional circumstances of their case, which were understood to raise humanitarian concerns. The domestic court, the Auckland Immigration and Protection Tribunal, considered the family’s integration, the fact that they were “well-loved and integral members of a family”, and the best interests of their two children, aged three and five years old at the material time. Having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Tribunal considered that the children’s young age made them more vulnerable to natural disasters and the adverse impact of climate change, and that it would be in their best interests to remain living with their parents in New Zealand. Concerning climate change and environmental degradation as a humanitarian issue, the Tribunal noted that it was “widely accepted that the impacts of climate change can adversely affect the enjoyment of basic human rights” and that “Tuvalu, as a country comprising low-lying topical islands (…) is particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Environmental degradation caused or exacerbated by climate change was already a feature of life in Tuvalu”. Considering these factors on a cumulative basis, and finding that there was no adverse public interest in this case, the Tribunal found that “there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellants to be removed from New Zealand.”

    Type of proceedings:
    Domestic

    Status of case:
    Final

    Decision in this case:
    The decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in this case can be downloaded below.

    Decision in AD (Tuvalu)Download

    Suggested citation:
    New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal at Auckland, AD (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 501370-371, Decision of 4 June 2014.

    Further information:
    For more on this case and an analysis, see Jane McAdam, ‘The Emerging New Zealand Jurisprudence on Climate Change, Disasters and Displacement’, 3(1) Migration Studies (2015), 131–142.

    Last updated:
    17 August 2023.

    Categories
    Canada Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Right to culture Right to health Right to property Right to subsistence/food

    Arctic Athabaskan Council v. Canada

    Summary:
    This case, brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by Athabaskan people living in Canada, concerned alleged rights violations relating to Arctic warming and melting caused by Canadian black carbon emissions. The case alleged that Canada, by failing to regulate black carbon emissions, had violated various human rights of the Athabaskan people, including their rights to health, subsistence, property, and culture.

    The complaint:
    The applicants in this case allege that Canada’s emissions of black carbon, which is a component of sooty fine-particle pollution and stems largely from diesel emissions and the burning of biomass, is particularly harmful to their rights and way of life because it is emitted in or near the Arctic.

    The applicants submit that the warming effect of black carbon on the global climate is second only to carbon dioxide. In the Arctic, black carbon warms in two ways: it absorbs sunlight in the air, and it reduces the reflectivity of ice and snow-covered surfaces, accelerating their rate of melting.

    In particular, the applicants cite their right to culture, particularly their ability to transmit their cultural knowledge to future generations, because “Arctic warming and melting has made the weather, the hunt, and the behaviors and occurrence of fish and wildlife so erratic that elders no longer feel confident in teaching younger people traditional ways.”

    The also argue that warming and melting has affected the integrity of the land, compromising their right to property. This includes floods, forest fires, melting permafrost, erosion-related harms and landslides, as well as the destruction of cultural and historic sites and increased difficulty in accessing resources. The Athabaskans also invoke their right to means of subsistence, citing difficulties in accessing traditional food sources and adverse effects on biodiversity. Lastly, they cite their right to health, arguing that the loss of traditional foods has adversely affected the Athabaskan way of life. Melting permafrost is affecting water quality, and the loss of traditional food sources is forcing the people to rely on purchased food, leading to increases in the prevalence of chronic diseases.

    Before the Commission, the applicants allege that the Canadian state’s acts and omissions represent an ongoing violation of their human rights, and that there are no domestic remedies suitable for addressing these violations. They argue that Canada has failed to take action to reduce black carbon emissions, and that such action could substantially remedy the Arctic warming and melting that are causing the violations at stake. They accordingly request the Commission to investigate and confirm the alleged harms; set forth the facts and applicable law, declaring a violation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and recommend steps to limit black carbon emissions and protect Arctic Athabaskan culture and resources from Arctic warming and melting.

    Forum:
    Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

    Date filed:
    23 April 2013

    Status of case:
    Pending

    Suggested citation:
    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Arctic Athabaskan Peoples v. Canada, petition submitted on 23 April 2013, case pending.

    Further information:
    For more on this petition, see

    The full text of the petition has been made available here by EarthJustice here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/AAC_PETITION_13-04-23a.pdf

    For a summary of the petition, provided by EarthJustice, click here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/legal_docs/summary-of-inuit-petition-to-inter-american-council-on-human-rights.pdf

    Further reading:
    Agnieszka Szpak, ‘Arctic Athabaskan Council’s Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Climate Change—Business as Usual or a Breakthrough?’ 162 Climatic Change (2020) 1575–1593.

    Categories
    2006 Biodiversity Emissions reductions/mitigation Extraterritorial obligations Freedom of movement Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Private and family life Right to culture Right to health Right to property Right to subsistence/food United States of America

    Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al. v. the United States of America

    Summary:
    Filed in 2005 by members of the Inuit people living in Canada, this application concerned the climate change-related responsibility of the United States of America. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights refused to examine the case on the grounds that the information provided was insufficient.

    More information on the petition:
    In this petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman and Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference living in Canada, sought relief from human rights violations related to climate change caused by the acts and omissions of the United States. Ms. Watt-Cloutier, on behalf of herself, 62 other individuals, and all of the Inuit of the arctic regions of the United States of America and Canada, sought relief against the effects of climate change, which — it was argued — have the potential to affect every aspect of the life of the Inuit people, including the quality of the permafrost, land and water, biodiversity and food sources, and cultural rights. The petitioners relied on the United States’ obligations under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other instruments that shape these obligations under the Declaration, including the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    This case was extraterritorially framed: it was brought by Inuit people living in Canada, but against the United States of America for its climate change-related human rights impacts. The petitioners argued that the acts and omissions by the United States had violated the Inuit’s rights to the benefits of culture, to property, to the preservation of health, life, physical integrity, security, and a means of subsistence, and to residence, movement, and inviolability of the home under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international instruments.

    Outcome:
    On 16 November 2006, the Commission refused to consider the petition because it considered that it had provided insufficient information. Specifically, it found that the petition did not “enable us [the Commission] to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration”.

    The Commission held a hearing in 2007 concerning the case, however it did not revisit its decision not to examine the complaints made.

    Forum:
    Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

    Date filed:
    7 December 2005

    Suggested citation:
    IACHR, Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al. v. USA, petition rejected on 7 December 2005

    Full text of the petition:
    The text of the petition is available at climatecasechart.com. Click here to access it.

    The video of the 2007 hearing is available here.

    Further information:
    For more on this petition, see:

    Agnieszka Szpak, ‘Arctic Athabaskan Council’s petition to the Inter-American Commission on human rights and climate change—business as usual or a breakthrough?’ 162 Climatic Change (2020) 1575–1593.