Case Law Database

Sacchi v Argentina et. al.

Date of Application:	Mon, 23 Sep 2019
Date of Decision:	Fri, 08 Oct 2021
Decision Making Body:	United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
Law Applied:	Paris Agreement United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Keywords:	Jurisdiction, Victim status, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Substantiation of claims, Inadmissibility ratione temporis
	Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf)

Chiara Sacchi et al Argentina; Chiara Sacchi et. al., v. Brazil; Chiara Sacchi et al v France; Chiara Sacchi et. al., v. Turkey.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child,

Decision adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure in respect of Communication No. 104/2019 (Argentina), Communication No. 105/2019 (Brazil), Communication No. 106/2019 (France), Communication No. 107/2019 (Germany), Communication No. 108/2019 (Turkey), UN Doc CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 (8 October 2021).

At Issue: Whether respondents violated children’s rights under international law by making insufficient cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and failing to use available tools to protect children from carbon pollution by the world’s major emitters.

Summary: Sixteen children filed a petition alleging that Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey violated their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“the Convention”) by making insufficient cuts to greenhouse gases and failing to encourage the world’s biggest emitters to curb carbon pollution. The children ask the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (“the Committee”) to declare that respondents violated their rights by perpetuating climate change, and to recommend actions for respondents to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Petitioners claim that climate change has led to violations of their rights under the Convention, including the rights to life, health, and the prioritization of the child’s best interest, as well as the cultural rights of petitioners from indigenous communities. For example, Deborah Adegbile of Nigeria asserts that she has been repeatedly hospitalized for asthma attacks triggered by rising temperatures and exacerbated smog. Ellen-Anne of Sweden alleges that climate change imperils her indigenous community’s traditional reliance on reindeer husbandry and herding. David Ackley III, Litokne Kabua, and Ranton Anjain of the Marshall Islands similarly claim that sea-level rise poses an existential threat to their culture.

Each respondent has ratified the Convention. All five have signed the Paris Agreement but, according to petitioners, none have made or kept commitments that align with keeping temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius. The petition asserts that respondents have four related obligations under the Convention: (i) to prevent foreseeable domestic and extraterritorial human rights violations resulting from climate change; (ii) to cooperate internationally in the face of the global climate emergency; (iii) to apply the precautionary principle to prevent deadly consequences even in the face of uncertainty; and (iv) to ensure intergenerational justice for children and posterity. Petitioners allege that respondents have failed to prevent foreseeable human rights harms caused by climate change by making insufficient reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. Petitioners further claim that as members of the G20, respondents have failed to use available legal, diplomatic, and economic tools to protect children from the greenhouse gas pollution of major emitters including China, the United Stations, the European Union and India.

The children request that the Committee make findings including that climate change is a children’s rights crisis, and that each respondent has caused and is perpetuating climate change by knowingly acting in disregard of available scientific evidence. They also ask the Committee to recommend that the respondents review, and where necessary, amend their laws and policies to ensure that mitigation and adaptation efforts are accelerated; initiate cooperative international action to establish binding and enforceable climate measures; and ensure children’s right to be heard in all efforts to mitigate or adapt to the climate crisis. The Committee must determine if the petition is actionable before making findings or recommendations.

Brazil, France and Germany responded to the petition, arguing that it was not admissible on three grounds: 1) the Committee lacks jurisdiction; 2) the petition is manifestly 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: 1) that the Committee has jurisdiction because the children are "directly and foreseeably injured by greenhouse gas emissions originating in Respondents' territory;" 2) the claims are manifestly well-founded because the children are suffering direct and personal harms now and will continue to in the foreseeable future; and 3) that pursuing domestic remedies would be futile.

On October 12, 2021, the CRC rejected the claim as inadmissible. The Committee accepted the claimant's arguments that States are legally responsible for the harmful effects of emissions originating in their territory on children outside their borders. The fact that all states are causing climate change does not absolve states of individual responsibility to reduce their own share of emissions. The Committee also found that the youth are victims of foreseeable threats to their rights to life, health, and culture.

Following the reasoning of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’ 2017 advisory opinion, the CRC found that countries have extraterritorial responsibilities related to carbon pollution. Using the IACtHR's test for jurisdiction, the Committee found that when transboundary harm occurs, children are under the jurisdiction of the State on whose territory the emissions originated if there is a causal link between the acts or omissions of the State in question and the negative impact on the rights of children located outside its territory, when the State of origin exercises effective control over the sources of the emissions in question.

While the Committee said that the children had shown, for jurisdictional purposes, that the impairment of their rights as a result of the State party’s acts or omissions regarding the carbon emissions originating within its territory was reasonably foreseeable, it held that the complaint was inadmissible for a failure to exhaust local remedies. 

https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sacchi-et-al-v-argentina-et-al/

Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre

Court documents:

Petition (23 September 2019)

Decision (8 October 2021)

Cited CRC articles

3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
30. Right to minority culture, language, religion (CRC Article 30)

The applicants refer to articles 3, 6, 24, and 30 directly.

The Committee refers to articles 3, 6, 12, 24, 30 directly.

The Committee issued an open letter to the petitioners.

Involvement of children in hearings

Oral presentation
Written presentation

Written presentations are made via the petition which contains stories from the applicants. 

Oral presentation was facilitated at the hearing of the matter.

“9. Following an invitation by the Committee and pursuant to rule 19 of its Rules of Procedure, 11 of the authors appeared before the Committee on 28 May 2021 via videoconference in a closed meeting without the presence of State party representatives. They explained to the Committee how climate change has affected their daily lives, they expressed their views about what the respondent States parties should do about climate change, and why the Committee should consider their communications”.

(Decision adopted by the CRC (Argentina), CRC/C/88/D/104/2019, unedited version, 8th Oct 2021, para 9). 

Intergenerational rights

The petition asserts that respondents have obligations under the Convention, one of which is to ensure intergenerational justice for children and posterity. (petition, para 176). 

Future generations

The petition contains various references to future generations.

“The child’s best interest parallels the principle of intergenerational equity under the Climate Change Convention, which “places a duty on current generations to act as responsible stewards of the planet and ensure the rights of future generations to meet their developmental and environmental needs.”” (petition, para 303). 

Outcome of decision for the applicants

Relief sought by applicants NOT granted

The petition was deemed inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The decision established the first acceptance by a UN body in principle that a state can potentially have extraterritorial responsibility for harm caused outside that state. 

The decision established that in a similar case which proceeded to be heard on its merits, children could be held to have victim status.

Did outcome of decision develop the law

Although the petition was deemed inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the decision established the first acceptance by a UN body in principle that a state can potentially have extraterritorial responsibility for harm caused outside that state. It established that in a similar case which proceeded to be heard on its merits, children could be held to have victim status.

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

NGO

Earthjustice 

San Francisco

Law firms

Hausfeld LLP (US) 

Washington

Available information on how children got involved in the litigation

The petitioners:

#ChildrenVsClimateCrisis

More info:

Greta and 15 Kids Just Claimed Their Climate Rights at the UN - Earthjustice

Age range of litigants

8-12
13-17

Number of children or youth involved

Back to Case Law Database

Youth Climate Justice

Explore UCC