Litigating Climate Change before the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Sacchi v Argentina et al.: Breaking New Ground?

Abstract

In September 2019, 16 children petitioned against Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in what has come to be known as the Sacchi case. The children requested that the UNCRC find that those States had caused and perpetuated climate change by knowingly disregarding scientific evidence, and that, in so doing, they had violated the children's human rights. In October 2021, the UNCRC dismissed the petition upon the grounds that it was inadmissible, as the petitioners had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Sacchi case gave rise to new challenges with regards to the admissibility of the decision: beyond the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the UNCRC had to grapple with the issue of victimhood in the context of climate change and extraterritorial climate obligations conferred to States in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights declared the Sacchi decision a 'historic ruling'. But did the UNCRC's conclusions in Sacchi truly break new ground? This article explores that question by examining the three admissibility criteria in turn: extraterritorial jurisdiction, victimhood, and the exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.