Category: Human dignity

Categories
Access to a remedy Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Emissions reductions/mitigation Fair trial Fossil fuel extraction Human dignity Imminent risk Non-discrimination Private and family life Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to property United States of America

Our Children’s Trust with 15 Juliana Plaintiffs v. The United States of America

Summary:
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 a group of youth. This petition follows the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change, which was issued on 29 May 2025, as well as drawing on the climate advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The petitioners were formerly plaintiffs in the Juliana proceedings brought before US domestic courts on the basis of the public trust doctrine, among others.

Before the Inter-American Commission, the petitioners allege that the United States has known for decades that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that a transition away from fossil fuels is needed to protect human rights. They argue that, as the world’s largest emitter, the United States has played a leading role in causing climate change, and that its greenhouse gas emissions — and the resulting climate change — violate the human rights of children and youth, who are disproportionately impacted by its effects.

They claim before the Commission that the United States has failed to comply with its international obligations to guarantee the petitioners’ human rights, that it has a duty to prevent harm to the global climate system to guarantee those rights, that it brached its obligation to act with due diligence ot guarantee their rights and prevent harm to the climate system, that if violated its obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,a form of pollution, and that the United States’s deliberate emissions of greenhouse gasses violate the substantive rights of the petitioners as per the American Declaration, including the rights to life and health, the particular protections for children, equality and non-discrimination, the rights to home, property and private and family life, the right to culture, the right to dignity, and the right to a healthy climate.

They also invoke their procedural rights, namely the rights to access to justice and an effective remedy, alleging that the United States Department of Justice has deployed “extraordinary tactics” to silence the petitioners, and that the domestic courts failed to consider the merits of their claims.

In their request for relief, the petitioners inter alia request the Commission to:

  • order precautionary measures to prevent further irreparable harm;
  • join the admissibility and merits of the petition, in accordance with Article 37(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, given the serious and urgent nature of the case and the ongoing violations of Petitioners’ fundamental rights;
  • conduct an on-site country visit, including a visit with the Petitioners, and hold fact-finding hearings;
  • establish violations of Articles I (life), II (equality), V (private and family life), VI (family), VII (special protections for children), IX (inviolability of the home), XI (health), XIII (cultural life), XVIII (access to justice and effective remedies), XXIII (property), and XXIV (prompt and effective remedy) of the American Declaration and the rights to dignity (Preamble) and to a healthy climate; and
  • issue a country report with recommendations to the United States to remedy confirmed violations of international law, taking into account the clarifications of existing law set forth by the IACtHR and the ICJ in their in Advisory Opinions on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights and the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.

Full text of the petition:

The full text of the petition can be found below.

_2025.09.23+Juliana-IACHR+PetitionDownload

Suggested citation:

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Our Children’s Trust with 15 Juliana Plaintiffs v. The United States of America, petition filed on 23 September 2025.

  • Tags
Categories
Adaptation African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Climate activists and human rights defenders Climate-induced displacement Deforestation Disability and health-related inequality Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation Environmental racism Evidence Extreme poverty Farming Gender / women-led Human dignity Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Loss & damage Minority rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Participation rights Private and family life Prohibition of torture Renewable energy Right to a healthy environment Right to assembly and association Right to development and work Right to education Right to freedom of expression Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Right to subsistence/food Rights of nature Sea-level rise Self-determination Standing/admissibility Victim status Vulnerability

African Court on Human and People’s Rights Climate Advisory Opinion

Summary:
On 2 May 2025, a request for an advisory opinion on climate change was submitted to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. The request was submitted by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), in collaboration with the African Climate Platform, and other African Civil society Organizations including the Environmental Lawyers Collective for Africa, Natural Justice and resilient40, and seeks clarification of States’ obligations in the context of climate change.

Submitted under article 4 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights and Rule 82(1) of the Rules of the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, the request submits that “[a]cross the continent, Africans are suffering the consequences of climate change, whether from rising temperatures, unrelenting droughts, catastrophic floods, vanishing biodiversity, or threats to livelihoods. Climate change in Africa has had prior, current and will have future consequences that impact the enjoyment of numerous rights.”

The request sets out impacts, disaggregating them region-by-region and in terms of the groups of people most affected by climate change (mentioning women and girls, children, the elderly, Indigenous peoples, and environmental human rights defenders in particular).

The request then goes on to discuss several issues of law, beginning with issues of admissibility and jurisdiction and then relying on a wide range of rights and instruments, namely:

  • a) the Constitutive Act of the African Union
  • b) the African Charter for Human and Peoples Rights (‘Banjul Charter’), especially articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 60 and 61
  • c) African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention)
  • d) Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol)
  • e) The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
  • f) The Revised African Convention on Conservation of Nature
  • g) Any other Relevant Instrument.

In doing so, PALU invites the Court to consider international climate change law, including the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement as well as the UN Conventions on Combatting Desertification and on Biological Diversity.

Rights invoked in more detail:
PALU submits that “a rights-based climate approach is needed to address the challenges posed by climate change” and that the human rights framework “provides a robust legal framework upon which the Court may rely to define States’ responsibilities and duties in the context of climate change […] because the Charter clearly provides for collective rights and the explicit protection of the right to a healthy environment.” PALU accordingly invites the Court to consider the following provisions of the Banjul Charter:

  • Articles 2 and 3 (equality and non-discrimination)
  • Article 4 (right to life and inviolability of the human person)
  • Article 5 (right to respect for dignity and prohibition of all forms of exploitation and degradation, including slavery and torture)
  • Article 8 (freedom of conscience and religion)
  • Article 9 (freedom of information and opinion)
  • Article 10 (freedom of association)
  • Article 11 (freedom of assembly)
  • Article 12 (freedom of movement, residence and asylum; prohibition of mass expulsion)
  • Article 14 (right to property)
  • Article 16 (right to health)
  • Article 17 (right to education)
  • Article 18 (protection of the family, prohibition of age and gender discrimination)
  • Article 19 (equality of peoples, prohibition of domination)
  • Article 20 (right of peoples to existence and self-determination)
  • Article 21 (right of peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources)
  • Article 22 (right of peoples to their economic, social and cultural development)
  • Article 23 (right of peoples to national and international peace and security)
  • Article 24 (right of all peoples to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development)
  • The request also discusses the implied rights to food and shelter.

Issues for determination:
PALU submits the following issues for determination by the Court (paraphrased):

(a) Whether the Court can be seized with the question of obligations concerning climate change under the Banjul Charter and other relevant instruments?

(b) Whether the Court can interpret and lay down applicable custom and treaty law regarding States’ obligations and duties in the context of climate change?

If these questions are resolved in the affirmative, the Court is invited to further determine:

(a) What, if any, are States’ human and peoples’ rights obligations to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals and peoples of the past (ancestral rights), and present and future generations?

(b) Whether States have positive obligations to protect vulnerable populations including environmental human rights defenders, indigenous communities, women, children, youth, future generations, the current generation, past generations, the elderly and people with disabilities from the impact of climate change in line with the relevant treaties?

(c) What human rights obligations do States have to facilitate a just, transparent, equitable and accountable transition in the context of climate change in Africa?

(d) What are the obligations of African States in implementing adaptation, resilience and mitigation measures in response to climate change?

(e) What, if any, are applicable human rights obligations of States to compensate for loss, damage and reparations?

(f) What responsibilities, if any, do African States have in relation to third parties, including international monopolies, multinational corporations and non-state actors operating on the continent, to ensure that international and regional treaties and laws on climate change are respected, protected, promoted and implemented?

(g) What, if any, is the nature of the obligations on African States to cooperate with other states especially historical emitters to limit global warming to below the 1.5°C threshold, to avert an existential climate crisis for present and future generations on the continent?

Further reading:
For more information on the advisory opinion request, see this post by Yusra Suedi.

Suggested citation:
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Request for an advisory opinion on the human rights obligations of African states in addressing the climate crisis, filed 2 May 2025 (pending).

Last updated:
23 May 2025

Categories
Adaptation Disability and health-related inequality Domestic court Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation Human dignity Paris Agreement Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to subsistence/food South Korea Vulnerability

Senior Citizens v. Korea

Summary:
In June 2024, a group of 123 older South Korean citizens brought suit against their government before South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission, arguing that the government’s greenhouse gas mitigation plans had violated their human dignity and their right to life. Their case concerns both mitigation and adaptation action. In terms of mitigation, they sought enhancement of the country’s 2030 national greenhouse gas reduction targets and an ambitious next nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. In terms of adaptation, they sought a risk assessment of impacts on human rights, including the rights to life, food, health, and housing, and emphasized the State’s fundamental obligation to protect these rights. This assessment should entail, they argued, “a factual survey and epidemiological investigation into the risks the climate crisis poses to the human rights of vulnerable social groups, including older persons”, and lead to more ambitious adaptation measures.

Petition:
The full text of the petition as filed can be found below.

Senior_Citizens_v_Korea_petitionDownload

Status of case:
Pending before South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission

Last updated:
29 November 2024

Categories
2023 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Human dignity Inter-American Human Rights System Peru Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life

Inhabitants of La Oroya v Peru

Summary:

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) ruled on 27 November 2023 that Peru is accountable for violating various rights of residents living near the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (CMLO), established in 1992 in La Oroya. The CMLO, dedicated to smelting and refining metals such as lead, copper, zinc, and arsenic, caused severe environmental pollution, contaminating air, water, and soil, and adversely affecting residents’ health and well-being. Consequently, the Court mandated Peru to conduct an environmental contamination analysis, provide free medical care to affected individuals, and adjust pollutant standards, marking a significant victory for the plaintiffs after enduring years of pollution and inadequate governmental response.

Claim:

The residents of La Oroya brought claims against Peru, asserting that the government’s failure to regulate and address the environmental contamination from the smelting complex violated their fundamental human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, health, and life. They presented evidence of the adverse health effects experienced due to exposure to toxic pollutants emitted by the complex.

Decision:

On 27 November 2023, the IACtHR declared Peru responsible for multiple human rights violations affecting the inhabitants of La Oroya. These violations are rooted in the contamination of the air, water, and soil caused by mining-metallurgical activities in the CMLO. The State’s failure to regulate and supervise these activities exacerbated the situation, leading to violations of the rights to a healthy environment, health, life, and personal integrity of the victims. Furthermore, the Court found that the State failed to fulfil its obligation of progressive development concerning the right to a healthy environment by regressing air quality standards.

The Court also determined that the State neglected children’s rights by not implementing adequate protection measures, considering the disproportionate impact of contamination on the children of La Oroya. It emphasized the critical connection between safeguarding children and addressing the climate crisis, noting that mining and industrial activities, particularly those involving fossil fuels, are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, posing risks to public health and exacerbating climate change. It further acknowledged the vulnerability of children to the impacts of climate change and the long-term consequences they face, as underscored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in the Sacchi case. Consequently, the Court asserted that states have a duty to protect children and must take decisive action to mitigate health risks from pollutant emissions that exacerbate climate change crisis.

Moreover, the Court concluded that the State violated the right to public participation and adequate information provision to the victims regarding measures affecting their rights. Additionally, it found the State in violation of the right to judicial protection by failing to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court for the protection of La Oroya’s inhabitants, which was delivered in 2006.

Finally, the Court held the State accountable for not investigating reported acts of harassment, threats, and reprisals against some victims. Based on these findings, the Court determined that the State of Peru violated several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, specifically articles 26, 5, 4.1, 8.1, 13, 19, 23, and 25, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument

Peru was ordered to conduct a comprehensive study assessing contamination in air, water, and soil in La Oroya and to develop an environmental remediation plan accordingly. Furthermore, Peru was ordered to provide free medical care to victims and compensate them individually with amounts ranging between $15,000 and $30,000. This decision emphasizes states’ obligation to safeguard the right to a healthy environment and hold them accountable for environmental harm threatening their citizens’ well-being.

Environmental protection as jus cogens:

In para. 129 of its ruling, the Court made a novel finding: it held that the obligation to protect the environment should be a jus cogens norm. The paragraph in question is translated here in full:

“States have recognised the right to a healthy environment, which carries with it an obligation of protection that is incumbent on the international community as a whole. It is difficult to imagine international obligations of greater significance than those that protect the environment against unlawful or arbitrary conduct that causes serious, extensive, long-lasting and irreversible damage to the environment in a scenario of climate crisis that threatens the survival of species. In view of the above, international protection of the environment requires progressive recognition of the prohibition of this type of conduct as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) that gains the recognition of the international community as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. This Court has pointed out the importance of the legal expressions of the International Community whose higher universal value is indispensable to guarantee essential or fundamental values. In this sense, guaranteeing the interest of both present and future generations and the preservation of the environment against its radical degradation is fundamental for the survival of humanity.” (para. 129 of the judgment, translated by climaterightsdatabase.com, references removed).

Links:

The case documents are accessible below for download:

Court-statement-about-the-rulingDownload
Full-text-of-the-rulingDownload
Official-summary-of-the-rulingDownload

Status of the case:

Decided.

Further reading:

For further information and analysis of the case, see among others:

  • José Saldaña, ‘People from La Oroya vs Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights: How Effective is International Law to Protect the Environment in Extractive Contexts?’, EJIL:Talk Blog, 11 April 2024, available here.
  • Patricio Trincado Vera, ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment in La Oroya v. Peru: A Landmark Judgement of the IACtHR’, OpinioJuris Blog, 25 May 2024, available here.

Suggested citation:

Inhabitants of La Oroya v Peru (Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of November 27, 2023, Inter-Am Ct HR, Series C No 511.

Last updated:

25 March 2024.

Categories
Brazil Class action Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Human dignity Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food

Institute of Amazonian Studies (IEA) v Brazil

Summary:

The IEA v. Brazil case centres on the severe deforestation crisis in the Brazilian Amazon, a major global climate concern. The Institute of Amazonian Studies (IEA), an NGO, initiated a public civil action, not only demanding the Brazilian government’s compliance with national climate laws but also advocating for the recognition of a new fundamental right to a stable climate for both current and future generations. IEA contends that the government has failed to meet emissions targets outlined in the National Policy on Climate Change, specifically the Plan to Prevent and Combat Deforestation in the Legal Amazon. The NGO seeks court orders to enforce compliance with these plans and, in case of non-compliance, calls for reforestation and resource allocation. Importantly, IEA asserts the existence of a fundamental right to climate stability implicit in the Brazilian Constitution, crucial for human life and ecological balance. This right encompasses various aspects such as an ecologically balanced environment, dignified life, inviolability of life, freedom, equality, security, property, health, food, and housing. The case also challenges the burden of proof, with IEA requesting a reversal, arguing that the government, holding evidence, should prove compliance with climate policies and lack of influence on deforestation rates.

Claim:

The IEA’s main contentions involve compelling the Brazilian government to adhere to climate policies, implement deforestation reduction plans, and acknowledge a fundamental right to climate stability. Additionally, the NGO seeks a reversal of the burden of proof, placing the responsibility on the government to demonstrate compliance with climate regulations and its non-influence on deforestation rates.

Legal developments:

In July 2021, the Federal District Court of Curitiba initially declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Court of Amazonas. However, this decision was subsequently suspended on 20 August 2021 by the Federal Appellate Court, following a ruling from the reporting judge. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision, returning the case to the Federal District Court.

During this process, the question of whether the case should be consolidated with another one, Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA, concerning the operationalisation of monitoring bases in critical areas within the Amazon, was also considered. The Court determined that the two cases were distinct in terms of typology, structure, objective, cause of actions, and demands. Specifically, it highlighted the differences between IEA v. Brazil, aimed at ensuring the federal government takes steps to implement climate policies, and Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA, which addresses environmental law matters.

On 7 December 2021, the Third Chamber of the Appellate Court affirmed the decision to return the case to the Federal District Court. The Court emphasised that, although both lawsuits dealt with illegal deforestation, they had different focuses. IEA v. Brazil concentrated on reducing Brazilian emissions through deforestation reduction, while Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA addressed an environmental law case focused on combating deforestation in ten “ecological hotspots” within a specific timeframe, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court underscored the distinction between climate litigation and environmental litigation in making its determination.

Links:

The case documents are accessible here and here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Federal Court of Curitiba.

Suggested citation:

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil, Federal Regional Court, Fourth Region, ACP No. 5048951-39.2020.4.04.7000, 29 March 2022 (Brazil).

Last updated:

12 January 2024

Categories
2021 Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Human dignity Italy Non-refoulement Right to life

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona

Summary:

In the case of I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona, decided on 24 February 2021 by the Supreme Court of Cassation in Italy, a significant precedent was established in humanitarian asylum cases. The decision mandated that Italian trial judges should collectively assess situations of environmental, social, or climate degradation when evaluating eligibility for humanitarian protection, in addition to considering situations of armed conflict. The case involved a Nigerian citizen, I.L., who sought refuge in Italy, primarily due to armed paramilitary conflict in the Niger Delta region that was being exacerbated by environmental degradation, particularly numerous oil spills.

Claim:

The applicant claimed that the lower courts committed a prejudicial error by not taking into account the environmental disaster situation in the Niger Delta as a basis for humanitarian protection. He argued that the trial judge’s decision violated Legislative Decree No. 286/1998, known as the Consolidated Immigration Act, by failing to extend humanitarian protection based on the environmental disaster in his home region. The central issue at hand was to ascertain whether individuals facing a real threat to their right to life in their country of origin, due to adverse social, environmental, and climate circumstances rather than armed conflict, should be granted humanitarian protection.

Decision:

The Supreme Court of Cassation accepted the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the Court of Ancona. The Court found that the applicant’s two grounds for appeal were well-founded. It recognized the existence of severe environmental instability in the Niger Delta, resulting from indiscriminate exploitation by oil companies and ethnic-political conflicts. The trial judge’s failure to consider the environmental context and widespread insecurity when assessing humanitarian protection eligibility was seen as an error.

The Court’s decision drew on international legal precedent, including the Teitiota decision from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which recognized that environmental degradation could hinder the right to life when a state is unable or unwilling to ensure ‘access to essential natural resources, such as arable land and drinking water’. The Court’s key findings and instructions are as follows:

  1. When assessing humanitarian protection, the evaluation of widespread dangerous conditions in the applicant’s country of origin should consider specific risks to the right to life and dignified existence arising from environmental degradation, climate change, or unsustainable development of the area.
  2. Danger to an individual’s life can depend on socio-environmental conditions, not solely armed conflict. Such socio-environmental factors include human action that seriously jeopardizes an individual’s survival and that of their relatives.
  3. Trial judges are instructed to establish an ‘essential level’ below which decent living conditions are not present and the fundamental right to life is not ensured. The judge must then verify the effective assurance of this minimum threshold, which should encompass both armed conflict and other circumstances that pose a serious risk to the individual and their family’s survival, such as social, environmental, or climatic degradation or unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
  4. The Court determined that if the situation in the country of origin does not allow for a minimum guarantee of the right to life, humanitarian protection should be granted. Importantly, this assessment now includes environmental and climatic factors influencing an individual’s decision to leave their home.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation – Second Civil Section 

Suggested citation:

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona, Supreme Court of Cassation, N. 5022/2021, 24 February 2021.

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
2019 Climate activists and human rights defenders Deforestation Domestic court Human dignity Pakistan Public trust doctrine Right to freedom of expression Right to life Rights at stake Rights of nature

Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.

Summary:

In Pakistan, civil society members have taken legal action against multiple government departments, including the Planning and Development Department, Punjab Environmental Protection Department, and Housing & Urban Development Department. They assert that these departments have neglected their responsibilities regarding the planting, protection, management, and conservation of trees and forests in Punjab. According to the petitioners, this neglect not only violates legal obligations but also infringes upon their constitutional rights, including the rights to life, liberty, dignity, and access to public places of entertainment. This case highlights the government’s failure to address these critical environmental issues.

Claim:

The central argument in this case is that the Pakistani government must be compelled to enforce environmental laws and policies, such as the Forest Act, the Trees Act, and various forestry and climate change policies. The petitioners argue that this action is essential to protect their fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. They specifically cite Article 9 (right to life and liberty), Article 14 (right to dignity), Article 26 (right to access public places of entertainment), and Article 38(b) (provision of available leisure places). The petitioners assert that the government’s failure to safeguard natural resources and forests, in light of their drastic depletion and the doctrine of public trust, clearly violates their constitutional rights and warrants judicial intervention.

Decision:

Following the lawsuit, the Lahore High Court granted a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioners. In its ruling, the court emphasised that international environmental principles, such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the public trust doctrine, inter-and intra-generational equity, water justice, food justice, in dubio pro natura, and the polluter pays principle, are integral to Pakistani jurisprudence.

The court stressed the government’s duty to effectively manage and protect forests and urban tree planting, citing specific laws to support its stance. The government was directed to actively adhere to environmental policies, particularly those related to climate change. The court also underscored the importance of environmental rights and the government’s responsibility to combat the impacts of climate change on forests and biodiversity. The court’s order included several instructions, such as enforcing policies, amending legal requirements, and mandating regular reporting on forest growth. It also addressed penalties for non-compliance and encouraged housing societies to support tree planting in green areas, with consequences for the unjustified removal of trees.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

Judgment

Suggested citation:

Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition No. 192069 of 2018, Lahore High Court, Judgment of 30 August 2019.

Last updated:

20 October 2023.

Categories
2023 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Fossil fuel extraction Human dignity Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to health Standing/admissibility United States of America

Held and Others v. Montana

Summary:
In Held and Others, sixteen young plaintiffs aged between two and eighteen brought a case against the U.S. state of Montana alleging violations of the state constitution due to climate change. The youth plaintiffs in this case, which is to some extent comparable to the Juliana litigation, alleged that they are already experiencing ‘a host of adverse consequences’ from anthropogenic climate change in Montana, including increased temperatures, changing weather patterns, more acute droughts and extreme weather events, increasing wildfires and glacial melt. Fossil fuels extracted in Montana cause emissions higher than those of many countries, including Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Spain, or the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs argued that this was causing health risks, especially for children, and that the defendants, among them the state of Montana, its Governor, and various state agencies, had “act[ed] affirmatively to exacerbate the climate crisis” despite their awareness of the risks to the applicants. On 14 August 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled wholly in favor of the youth plaintiffs, declaring that Montana had violated their constitutional rights and invalidating the statutory rule forbidding state authorities from considering the impacts of GHG emissions or climate change in decision-making related to fossil fuel extraction. In 2025, 13 of the 16 original plaintiffs filed non-compliance proceedings based on new state legislation.

Claims made:
The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of fossil fuel-based provisions of Montana’s State Energy Policy Act along with a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act which forbids state authorities from considering the impacts of GHG emissions or climate change in their environmental reviews (the “MEPA Limitation”). They also challenged the aggregate acts that the state has taken to implement and perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system under these statutes.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that their right to a clean and healthy environment includes a right a stable climate, and that existing approaches to greenhouse gas emissions in Montana violate constitutional provisions, including the right to a clean and healthy environment; the right to seek safety, health, and happiness; and the right to individual dignity and to equal protection. They also sought injunctive relief, namely an order to account for Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop and implement an emissions reductions plan.

Decision on the admissibility:
On 4 August 2021, a the Montana First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County declared the case admissible in part. The prayer for injunctive relief in terms of emissions accounting, a remedial plan or policy, the appointment of expert to assist the court, and retain jurisdiction until such orders are complied with were rejected. However, the court declared the constitutional rights claims admissible, including the claim about the plaintiffs’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment’, which — as the plaintiffs submitted — ‘includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties’.

Judge Seeley’s Ruling of 14 August 2023:
After a trial held from 12-23 June 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley of the First Judicial District Court of Montana issued a ruling in this case on 14 August 2023. Noting that “[t]he science is clear that there are catastrophic harms to the natural environment of Montana and Plaintiffs and future generations of the State due to anthropogenic climate change”, she ruled wholly in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the state of Montana had violated their constitutional rights to equal protection, dignity, liberty, health and safety, and public trust, all of which are predicated on their right to a clean and healthful environment (p. 92-93).

In doing so, Judge Seeley ruled that the youth plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they had proven that they had experienced significant injuries. The court set out the different impacts on the plaintiffs at length (p. 46-64). It ultimately found that the plaintiffs “have experienced past and ongoing injuries resulting from the State’s failure to consider GHGs and climate change, including injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness” (p. 86 of the ruling). The judge also ruled that while mental health injuries based on state inaction on climate change do not on their own constitute a cognizable injury, “mental health injuries stemming from the effects of climate change on Montana’s environment, feelings like loss, despair, and anxiety, are cognizable injuries” (p. 86-87). The ruling recognizes that “[e]very additional ton of GHG emissions exacerbates Plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries”, and that these injuries “will grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change” (p. 87). As children and youth, the plaintiffs are disproportionately impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts, and their injuries are “concrete, particularized, and distinguishable from the public generally” (p. 87).

On causation, and having heard and evaluated testimony from several expert witnesses, the Court extensively reviewed the scientific evidence concerning the causation and progression of anthropogenic climate change and identified the Earth’s energy imbalance as the critical metric for determining levels of global warming (p. 22). Having established that “Montana is a major emitter of GHG emissions in the world in absolute terms, in per person terms, and historically”, and noting the state government’s continuing approval of fossil fuel projects despite its already extensive production of oil, gas and coal, the Court found that there was a “fairly traceable connection” between Montana’s statutes, its GHG emissions, climate change, and the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs (p. 87). Noting that the state government had the authority to limit fossil fuel-related activities, and having regard to the fact that the MEPA Limitation causes the state to ignore climate impacts and renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, as well as noting the economic and environmental advantages of a green energy transition for Montana, the Court noted that “current barriers to implementing renewable energy systems are not technical or economic, but social and political” (p. 83). The state of Montana, it held, “authorizes fossil fuel activities without analyzing GHGs or climate impacts, which result in GHG emissions in Montana and abroad that have caused and continue to exacerbate anthropogenic climate change” (p. 88). It noted also that these emissions were “nationally and globally significant”, and could accordingly not be considered de minimis; they “can be measured incrementally and cumulatively both in terms of immediate local effects and by mixing in the atmosphere and contributing to global climate change and an already destabilized climate system” (p. 88).

On the redressability of these impacts, the Court noted that the psychological satisfaction of the ruling itself did not constitute sufficient redress, and that declaring the relevant state statutory rules unconstitutional would provide partial redress because ongoing emissions will continue to cause harms to the plaintiffs. Noting that “[i]t is possible to affect future degradation to Montana’s environment and natural resources and injuries to these Plaintiffs”, and applying strict structiny to the state’s statutes, the Court found that the MEPA Limitation violates the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution, which protects children and future generations (among others) and includes the protection of the climate system. As a result, the Court tested whether the MEPA Limitation was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, finding that neither had the state authorities shown that it served a compelling governmental interest, nor was it narrowly tailored to serve any interest.

As a result, the judge invalidated the Montana legislation that promoted fossil fuels and prohibited analysis of GHG emissions and corresponding climate impacts.

Proceedings on non-compliance:
On 10 December 2025, a petition on behalf of 13 of the original 16 plaintiffs in the case filed a petition for original jurisdiction with the Montana Supreme Court. They challenged statutes passed by the Montana legislature in 2025, arguing that they weaken the state’s environmental protection laws and undermine the state’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment. The petition seeks a declaration that these statutes are unconstitutional, and to overturn them.

The petition in these follow-up proceedings is available below:

Petition+for+Original+JurisdictionDownload

Date filed:
13 March 2020

Date of admissibility decision:
4 August 2021

Date of Ruling:
14 August 2023

More information:
The original complaint is available from the Western Environmental Law Center.

The admissibility decision is available on climatecasechart.com.

Judge Seeley’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of 14 August 2023 are available below.

Held-v-MontanaDownload

Suggested citations:
Montana First District Court for Lewis and Clark county, Held and others v. State of Montana and others, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, 14 August 2023, Cause no. CDV-2020-307.

Categories
Access to a remedy Children and young people Extreme poverty Haiti Human dignity Inter-American Human Rights System Right to life Vulnerability

Petition of Children of Cité Soleil and SAKALA

Summary:

On 4 February 2021, six children of Cité Soleil, Haiti and a community center established to provide safe harbor for children in Cité Soleil (SAKALA Community Center for Peaceful Alternatives) communicated a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging human rights violations arising from the adverse environmental conditions that they are subject to.  

Facts of the case:

The petitioners’ concern relates to the local waste management system in Cité Soleil, which is woefully inadequate and exposes residents to risks arising from toxic waste and fumes. They complain that waste from other cities is brought into Cité Soleil but not contained in sanitary landfills or subjected to waste treatment. Piles of trash are burnt in the open, worsening the air quality, and floods carry the trash into residential areas, and lead to the contamination of water sources. They argue that climate-related adverse events magnify the adverse environmental conditions that children in Cité Soleil are faced with, aggravating their vulnerability.  

Claims:

The petitioners allege that Haiti is engaged in violations of the rights of the child, the right to dignity, the right to life, and the right to judicial protection of children in Cité Soleil. They request the Commission to recommend Haiti to undertake concrete measures addressing the environmental pollution problem and providing specialized and adequate medical care to the children. Aside from requesting an investigation on the matter and granting the reliefs sought, the petitioners have requested the Commission to grant precautionary measures of protection in the interim- requiring Haiti to take urgent measures and protect the children in Cité Soleil from harm.  

Status of the case:

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is yet to decide on the admissibility of the petition.  

Links:

For the petition (in English), click here.

Last updated:

2 August 2023.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Human dignity Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life South Korea

Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea)

Summary:
In October 2021, the South Korean NGO “Climate Crisis Emergency Action” filed a constitutional complaint on behalf of 130 parties concerning the country’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets as set out in the South Korean Basic Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth (the Carbon Growth Act), which was promulgated on 24 September 2021. On 29 August 2024, the Constitutional Court of South Korea issued its judgment in this and three other mitigation cases.

In a draft of the application form available online (in Korean), the applicant organization noted the Korean National Assembly’s statement in support of the 1.5 degree emissions reductions target under the Paris Agreement, and the insufficiency of the domestic mitigation action to meet that target. It submitted that the domestic target is “an arbitrary and irresponsible reduction target set in defiance of the standards agreed upon by the scientific community and the international community.” Noting the State’s “duty to protect the basic rights of its citizens” (in Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution), it submitted that fundamental rights are already being violated and will continue to be violated, and that higher legislative ambition is required.

Claims made (as per the version of the application made available here):
The plaintiffs in this case contested Article 8(1) of the Carbon Growth Act, which stipulates that “the government shall reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by a rate prescribed by Presidential Decree by at least 35 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 by 2030 as the mid- to long-term national greenhouse gas reduction target.” The plaintiffs argued that this goal was arbitrary and irresponsible and that ot ignored climate scientific findings and the standards agreed upon by the international community, and that it is not based on a ‘carbon budget (total greenhouse gas emissions)’ necessary to prevent the climate crisis. Furthermore, they argued that the Carbon Growth Act is based on ‘groundless optimism’ about technology and market-based ‘green growth’ and that it favors corporate interests over constitutional rights protection.

In concreto, the plaintiffs invoked the right to pursue human dignity, value and happiness in Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution, along with the right to live a life worthy of humanity in Article 34, and the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment in Article 35. They also invoked Article 36 of the Constitution concerning the protection of public health and disaster prevention. Citing scientific evidence concerning increasing natural disasters, food and water shortages, security crises and social disasters, they submitted that “the obligation to protect fundamental rights from climate change has been fulfilled only when measures corresponding to the minimum level agreed upon in the international community are taken.”

The applicants explicitly linked their case to the German Neubauer judgment concerning the impact of unambitious climate policy on the rights of future generations, as well as referencing the Dutch Urgenda judgment.

Relevant interim developments:

On 12 June 2023, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) (the present case) and Min-A Park v. South Korea). Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean Constitutional Court found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.