The intergenerational equity principle in the fight against climate change

1. Introduction
1.1 Melting glaciers and intergenerational equity
It is estimated that climate change will affect children growing up in South America on a large scale, as they will face an increasing number of days with water scarcity and restricted water access. Some areas will be affected more than others, depending on the water they get from glaciers. If the Andes glaciers and
snow caps keep melting, the amount of water will decrease. The glaciers will disappear entirely. This will lead to stronger hurricanes or storms and heavy rainfall, which lead to river flooding. [1] The consequences of climate change are not only limited to rainfall, rising seas, melting, or weather events; it will also compromise livelihoods, fisheries, children’s nutritional status, changes in vector-borne diseases, air pollution, and ecological imbalances like crop failure. [2] The future generation will already inherit the planet in a state where sustainability of future generations is severely compromised. [3] The future
generation has to depend on the actions of the current generation to prevent these consequences from happening. [4]

The principle of intergenerational equity (IE) is meant to make sure that the present generation passes on enough natural resources and sufficient environmental quality to the next generation. [5]

1.2 Structure of the article
This article will focus on the question, what the legal status of the intergenerational equity principle is, and if it can be used effectively in the fight against climate change in litigation. The article starts by giving information on the IE principle, where it can be found, and its problems. This section ends by discussing the link between IE and intragenerationality. The third section will focus on six landmark cases. They are introduced with an introduction to IE in climate change litigation. Then domestic cases will be discussed. Concluding with pending cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) about IE. The article will end with a conclusion.

1.3 Problems with intergenerational equity
The IE principle can be found in several international environmental legislation, and is used differently in case law. [6] It is a concept that is difficult to use in practice, understand and implement. The principle of IE is chaotic to understand, implement, or understand in practice and in concept. [7]
It is also still unclear if this principle is customary international law. [8] The legal position of future generations in judicial decisions is also unresolved. [9] As shown in these examples, there is a lot of uncertainty about this principle. There is even debate whether it is more of a moral obligation than a legal one, or whether it is an argument for sustainable development instead of a principle. [10] It is difficult to imagine what the future of intergenerational equity might be. [11]

2. Intergenerational equity
2.1 What is the intergenerational equity principle?
The well-being of future generations depends on the actions of the current generation. The environmental rights principle of IE addresses this issue. The principle was pioneered by Edith Brown in 1989. [12] In the past, it was considered to be an argument for sustainable economic development or an ethical dimension. Intergenerational equity is identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many authors as an element of the principle of sustainable development. It is used in litigation and is found in international environmental legislation. [13]

IE is a principle that describes the access and use of resources across time. This principle is based on two relationships: 1) the relationship between all generations from the past, present and future. They are part of a community with equal rights to natural resources, and 2) the relationship between the natural system and human community. [14] IE applies to both the diversity of resources and the quality of the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies it as an integral element of sustainable development. [15]

Minimum standards are required to ensure the quality of life for each generation, so each generation can enjoy as much benefit as the other generations. To achieve this, there needs to be equity between generations, and each generation needs to meet its own needs. This principle does not imply absolute equality. The present and future needs, need to be balanced and provide flexibility for future generations to achieve their own goals. This can be realized through three components:
1. Conservation of quality of ecological systems comparable to that of previous generations.
2. Conservation of options by maintaining the diversity of natural resources, future generations can make choices that satisfy their needs.
3. Conservation of access to planetary resources. Future and current generations can benefit from natural resources. [16]

Five duties of use can be derived from these three principles:
‘’i) the duty to conserve resources;
(ii) the duty to ensure equitable use;
(iii) the duty to avoid adverse impacts;
(iv) the duty to prevent disasters, minimize damage, and provide emergency assistance; and
(v) the duty to compensate for environmental harm.’’ [17]

2.2 What is the legal status of the intergenerational equity principle?
The first acknowledgment of an obligation towards future generations could be found in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. With this declaration, more international conventions and declarations began to recognize this obligation. In the 1987 Brundtland Report, it was acknowledged in the definition of
sustainable development. Since the development of intergenerational equity in international law, states have made domestic provisions regarding future generations, like in the constitutions of Germany, Brazil, Guyana, South Africa, Vanuatu and Norway. 18 It is also found in the national legislation of the U.S.,
Australia, and Japan.

In international law, references can be found in the Rio Declaration, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1946 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and the World Heritage Convention. [19]

This principle can also be found in conventions focused on climate change. One of the principles in article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) is that parties need to: “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity.’’ [20]
However, this principle is limited by the wording of the article, which states that the parties are guided, by the principles. They are guided, but not bound, by the principles. [21]

The Paris Agreement (PA) is a binding climate change law convention and recognizes IE in its preamble. The Parties need to take human rights obligations into account when they take action to address climate change; this includes intergenerational equity. However, this is not an obligation because it is described as
an obligation the Parties ‘’should’’ acknowledge. This commitment is also reflected in the Katowice Rule book, which gives guidelines for the implementation of PA. [22]

The principle of IE is found in a lot of non-binding soft law declarations. It is recognized in the binding PA, but does not give rights to future generations. Currently, there is no international law instrument that gives the core elements of this principle or rights to future generations. [23] A question that remains is, if it can be considered customary law, which will be assessed by looking at the case law.

2.3 The relationship with intergenerationality
Intra-generational equity, like IE is an element of the sustainable development principle. Intra-generational equity is called the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) in some treaties. CBDR is one of the core principles of climate change regimes. [24] This principle is also found in the UNFCCC and suggests that the principle means that the international community shares a common responsibility to protect the global atmosphere. The responsibility to address global climate change should be differentiated based on capacity to respond and historical contribution. [25] Intra-generational
equity is more broad than CBDR; it addresses the disparities between states and can take many forms, like capacity-building, financial assistance and the principle of CBDR. [26]

The linkage between inter- and intra-generationality can be found in article 3 under 1 of the UNFCCC. In the preamble of the PA, both principles are mentioned. They seem to be linked because a common concern for humankind is mentioned in the paragraph on IE.

Not only are the two principles legally linked, but climate change affects not only the current and future generations, but also the different communities within a (future) generations, like indigenous communities, which are more affected by climate change. [27] Low-income countries and small island developing states (SIDS) will be affected the most by climate change, despite their minimal contribution to emissions. [28] The consequences that inter- and intragenerationality try to prevent are linked because certain communities will be affected more than others in the future.

3. Intergenerational equity in climate change litigation
3.1 Intergenerational equity in climate change litigation
Climate litigation has increased. Litigation can challenge activities or decisions; it can be used to influence policies, or as strategic litigation. Some of these litigation tactics are borrowed from tobacco and asbestos litigation. Human rights principles are also often used in climate change litigation. [29] International courts or tribunals don’t fully recognize, IE.

One of the first cases where this principle was used, was the Behring Fur Seals Arbitration. In the Dissenting Opinion of the ICJ Nuclear Tests case, there was a reference to emerging principles, like the IE principle. It was also recognized in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons case. The damage that nuclear weapons could do to future generations was mentioned. [30] Cases where plaintiffs representing the interests of future generations are growing in courts around the world, where questions regarding IE and climate change are raised. [31]

An older, important environmental case regarding IE, that impacted the development of national and international law is, the 1993 Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran case of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. [32]

It was first brought before a local trial court and was filed by minors who were represented by their parents against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. They represented others of their generation and unborn generations. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to full benefit, use and enjoyment of the tropical rainforests. They filed the case to cancel existing timber license agreements and stop the issuing of new ones. This license agreement was a privilege granted by the state to a person to use forest resources. They claimed that the deforestation and damage to the environment were a result of this and violated their constitutional rights to a healthy ecology and health. The defendant claimed that the petitioners had no cause of action, that it was a political question instead, that it and should not be addressed in court. The court agreed with the defendant. The petitioners filed a petition to the Supreme
Court to set aside the trial’s order of dismissing the case. [33]

The court found that the petitioners were able to file a case for others of their generations and unborn generations, and that the right to a balanced and healthy ecology created obligations for every person to preserve the environment. Every generation has the obligation to preserve a healthy ecology for the next
generation. This obligation could be used as the basis for citizens to sue. The Supreme Court deemed it a class suit. [34]

3.2 Domestic climate litigation cases concerning intergenerational equity
In recent years, there also have been domestic climate change litigation cases concerning, IE. One landmark case is the Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others case of the Supreme Court of Columbia. [35] This ruling is important because the court presses the government based on future
generations to take action on climate change, and the court uses international law as part of its argument. [36] The Columbian constitution is based on economic and ecological elements. The ecological elements are developed by the court and connects the Colombian constitutional system with the environment. This
connection imposes a duty for the state to protect the environment. [37]

In Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others case, 25 youth plaintiffs, including indigenous youth, sued several Colombian governmental bodies and corporations that operated in the Amazon Rainforest. They sued them for increased deforestation in the Amazon and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [38] They argued that the government had failed to respect the constitutional right to a healthy environment, health, life, nutrition and water, as well as the rights of future generations. [39] This was based on the PA and Colombian Law 1723. The government had committed to reduce Amazon deforestation to zero by 2020, but it only increased. This threatened the fundamental rights to a healthy environment, life, and food of the plaintiffs. They first brought the case to the Higher Tribunal of Bogotd, this court dismissed the claim as inadmissible.

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had used the correct basis, and ruled that as long as a healthy environment has a clear link with rights to life, health or freedom, admissibility would be granted. [40] In this case, the Supreme Court applied the principle of IE and ruled that environmental impacts are connected to fundamental rights of life, freedom, human dignity and health. Five orders were issued against the defendants to reduce deforestation and GHG emissions. [41]

Another recent domestic case is the Held v. Montana case in the U.S. [42] Held v. Montana is considered the first big win of the U.S. youth-led climate litigation movement that could encourage similar outcomes. [43] It highlights the importance of IE and shows the role of the U.S. youth-led climate litigation movements and how IE is used in this.

In 2020, 16 young people between the ages of two and eighteen filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District against the State of Montana, and several of its departments. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against the defendants for the continued release of carbon that contributes to climate change.
The State of Montana follows the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). According to the plaintiffs, this violated the Montana Constitution and the public trust doctrine. The Montana constitution gives the right to a clean and healthy environment to all citizens, regardless of age. [44] The public trust doctrine states that the central authority holds natural resources for use by the public; it is a fundamental right. The constitution has adopted this doctrine by instructing the state to maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment in Montana for the present generations. [45]

The court recognizes that children are affected more by climate change, because they will live longer with the consequences and have already experienced them. And that the MEP violates the plaintiff’s right to a clean and healthy environment. The court deems it unconstitutional. [46] The court doesn’t mention the future generations but decides that the MEP is a violation of the constitution, which mentions future generations rights.

There are also European constitutional courts that have made judgments regarding IE. In the Neubauer case, a group of German minors and young adults filed a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court because their right of human dignity, life and physical integrity were violated. They challenged the Bundesklimaschutzgesetz (KSG) because its reduction of GHG was insufficient. They requested a declaration from the court that the German legislation violated Basic Law and that a new regulation needed to be made. [47] The Constitutional Court found that the KSG was incompatible with fundamental rights. German Basic Law obliges the legislature to protect the climate, preserve the natural foundations for future generations, and achieve climate neutrality. It recognizes that the environmental burdens are spread between different generations. [48] The Constitutional Court decided that the legislator
has to enact provisions to update the reduction targets. [49]

3.3 Pending ECHR IE climate change cases
There are currently cases pending at the ECHR, brought on by children, regarding climate change and intergenerational equity. In these cases, IE is linked to human rights that are violated. One of these cases is the Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States case. [50]

The applicants in this case are young people from Portugal between the ages of 8 and 21. They argue that the GHG emissions of 33 contracting states to the ECHR causes heat waves and forest fires. These forest fires have a great impact on their living conditions and health. They experience health problems like allergies, breathing difficulties, and have trouble sleeping. The forest fires can occur several times a year. During this time, it is impossible to spend time outside or go to school. During the winter, some of the applicants experience powerful storms. They live close to the sea and could experience the consequences of this storm. The applicants also experience anxiety regarding their own future and future families. [51] They argue that the 33 states do not comply with their positive obligations under articles 2, 8, and, 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in light of the commitments that were made in the PA. [52] According to the plaintiffs, their generation is more impacted by climate change. They charge the states with the obligation to adopt measures to regulate the contribution to climate change in an appropriately, by decreasing emissions, prohibiting the export of fossil fuels, compensating for arisen emissions, and limiting the release of emissions abroad. They presume that the measures taken are inadequate until proven otherwise. [53]  Since 2021, interventions by third parties like Amnesty International and the European Commission. The Chamber of the ECHR renounced jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber, which will examine the case. [54]

Another case before the ECHR concerning intergenerational equity and climate change is the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland Case [55] In this case, the plaintiffs are not children or young adults but elderly women. The application was brought by 2038 women under the Association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. The health of the applicants is affected by the increasing temperatures that are caused by climate change. They took the Swiss government to the ECHR. The Swiss government accepts the seriousness of the harm but hasn’t taken any action to mitigate the risk. The GHG emissions aren’t reduced enough. The domestic Swiss courts haven’t recognized this failure. The applicants claim that it is a violation of article 2, 8, 6, and 13 of the ECHR. The applicants asked the ECHR to order the respondent to adopt legislative measures to prevent a global temperature increase of 1.5 °C. [56]

The Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz states that domestic courts across the world have already recognized individual human rights, like the rights of future generations. [57] In 2024 the case came before the ECHR and they found a violation of the right to respect for private and family life (art.8) and access to
the court (art.6 (1). The court decided that art.8 encompasses a right to effective protection from serious effects of climate change, by the state authorities. Switzerland had failed to comply with the positive obligation under the Convention regarding climate change because there were gaps in the domestic
legislation and did not meet the GHG emission reduction targets. Even though there is a large discretion for national authorities, Switzerland had not acted in time and appropriately, thus violating art.6. [58] IE was mentioned and used by third-party interventions during the case. [59] The Court recognizes that the effects of climate change raise an issue of intergenerational burden-sharing and that it is an important aspect of policymaking. [60] They do not base their decision on this principle or provide any other statement regarding its status.

4. Conclusion
The IE principle started out as a legal argument by authors like Edith Brown, but is now recognized in several soft law mechanisms like the UNFCCC. It can also be found in the legally binding PA. The IE principle is used in international and domestic cases. It is linked to the intragenerational equity principle, in legal provisions, and can address the same consequences. The legal status of the IE principle in international provisions is not binding. The IE principle is not fully recognized in international law and doesn’t give rights to future generations. The PA is a legally binding convention, but gives no rights to
future generations or direct obligations to states. Although there has been a recent rise in cases concerning the IE principle, it cannot be considered
customary law yet. It only has limited recognition by the international courts like the ICJ, where it is mentioned in Dissenting Opinions or Advisory Opinions. It is recognized or used by several domestic courts, like the Philippine Supreme Court in 1993. In recent years, domestic courts like the Columbia Supreme Court, the German Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court of Montana in the U.S. have recognized the link the IE principle has with fundamental rights and its importance in their constitutions. One could argue that this constitutes as a general practice accepted as law, because of the engagement by the states, but there is still no international court that recognizes IE as customary law. Great powers like the U.S. have only started to recognize the struggles of youth-led climate change litigation groups. In Europe, there are some judgments of constitutional courts about IE issued; the Neubauer case is an example of this. The cases concerning IE are still pending before the ECHR.

When the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland was still pending, one could hope for a more favorable outcome. It could have had an important impact, if the observations from the Court would be that domestic courts across the world have already recognized individual human rights like the rights of future generations and that they would acknowledge it. The Court did not base its judgment in the KlimaSeniorinnen case on IE, and only mentioned as an important aspect. The legal status of the IE principle remains non-binding, although international and domestic practices imply a development towards international recognition. Even though it is a non-binding principle at the moment, it can still be used effectively in the fight against climate change.

In domestic cases, a positive outcome can be seen in most of the landmark cases. The IE principle can give legal standing to groups of people or create obligations for the state. In the Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio
S. Factoran case of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Constitutional Court of the Philippines found that a group of young people could have standing for their own and future generations and recognized the IE principle as an obligation for every generation to preserve the environment for the next. The use of the IE principle in cases can also help to recognize this principle in the constitution of the state and deem other provisions or non-compliance as unconstitutional. This can create an obligation to reduce emissions for government bodies. In the Neubauer case, this led to an obligation for the state to create new legislation to reduce GHG emissions.

IE principle is an effective tool on a domestic level and can be an important element in international cases.

1 ‘FAQ 3: How Will Climate Change Affect the Lives of Today’s Children Tomorrow, If No Immediate Action Is Taken?’ (Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions/keyfaq3/> accessed 26 March 2024.
2 Elizabeth D. Gibbons, 'Climate Change, Children's Rights, and the Pursuit of Intergenerational Climate Justice' (2014) 16 Health & Hum Rts J 19, p.20.
3 Sacha Hollis, 'Old Solutions to New Problems: Providing for Intergenerational Equity in National Institutions' (2010) 14 NZ J Envtl L 25, p.26.
4 Danai Spentzou, 'Climate Change Litigation as a Means to Address Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change' (2021) 2021 QMLJ 153, p.153.
5 ‘Intergenerational Equity’ (Oxford Reference) <https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006730> accessed 26 March 2024.
6 Ntozintle Jobodwana, 'Integrating International Environmental Principles and Norms into the South African Legal System and Policies' (2011) 8 US-China Law Review 701, p.716.
7 Zena Hadjiargyrou, 'A Conceptual and Practical Evaluation of Intergenerational Equity in International Environment Law' (2016) 18 Int'l Comm L Rev 248, p.277.
8 Ntozintle Jobodwana, 'Integrating International Environmental Principles and Norms into the South African Legal System and Policies' (2011) 8 US-China Law Review 701, p.704.
9 Zena Hadjiargyrou, 'A Conceptual and Practical Evaluation of Intergenerational Equity in International Environment Law' (2016) 18 Int'l Comm L Rev 248, p.277. Danai Spentzou, 'Climate Change Litigation as a Means to Address Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change' (2021) 2021 QMLJ 153, p.181.
10 Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.589 Sacha Hollis, 'Old Solutions to New Problems: Providing for Intergenerational Equity in National Institutions' (2010) 14 NZ J Envtl L 25, p.26.
11 Zena Hadjiargyrou, 'A Conceptual and Practical Evaluation of Intergenerational Equity in International Environment Law' (2016) 18 Int'l Comm L Rev 248, p.277.
12 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.191.
13 Danai Spentzou, 'Climate Change Litigation as a Means to Address Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change' (2021) 2021 QMLJ 153. p.153. Ntozintle Jobodwana, 'Integrating International Environmental Principles and Norms into the South African Legal System and Policies' (2011) 8 US-China Law Review 701, p.715.
14 Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.571.
15 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.190.
16 Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.571.
17 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.191.
18 Sacha Hollis, 'Old Solutions to New Problems: Providing for Intergenerational Equity in National Institutions' (2010) 14 NZ J Envtl L 25, p.27.
19 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.196.
20 Article 3 under 1 UNFCCC. Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.572.
21 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.194.
22 Cordonier Segger M-C, ‘Intergenerational Justice in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’, Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementation: Advancing Future Generations Rights through National Institutions. Treaty Implementation for Sustainable Development (Cambridge University Press 2021).
23 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.196.
24 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.191.
25 C.P. Cinnamon and others,’International Climate Change Law: Mapping The Field’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p 15.
26 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.187.
27 Danai Spentzou, 'Climate Change Litigation as a Means to Address Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change' (2021) 2021 QMLJ 153, p.154.
28 Sacha Hollis, 'Old Solutions to New Problems: Providing for Intergenerational Equity in National Institutions' (2010) 14 NZ J Envtl L 25, p.26. ‘Climate Change’ (World Health Organization) <https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and- health#:~:text=While%20no%20one%20is%20safe,and%20disadvantaged%20countries%20and%20communities.> accessed 29 March 2024.
29 Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.573.
30 Redgwell C, ‘Principles and Emerging Norms in International Law: Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity ’, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016), p.198.
31 Lydia Slobodian, 'Defending the Future: Intergenerational Equity in Climate Litigation' (2020) 32 Geo Envtl L Rev 569, p.570.
32 Hassan P, ‘Role of the South in the Development of International Environmental Law’ (2017) 1 Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 133, p.154.
33 Dante B. Gatmaytan, 'The Illusion of Intergenerational Equity: Oposa v. Factoran as Pyrrhic Victory' (2003) 15 Geo Int'l Envtl L Rev 457, p.460-461.
34 Ibid. 462.
35 Future Generations vs. Ministry of the Environment and Others, (2018 Supreme Court of Columbia) no.11001 22 03 000 2018 00319 00.
36 Paola Andrea Acosta Alvarado & Daniel Rivas-Ramirez, 'A Milestone in Environmental and Future Generations’ Rights Protection: Recent Legal Developments before the Colombian Supreme Court' (2018) 30 J Envtl L 519, 522.
37 Ibid, 521.
38 ‘Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others’ (Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others | UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform) <https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/co/national-case-law/future-generations-vs-ministry-environment-and-others> accessed 30 March 2024.
39 Ibid.
40 Paola Andrea Acosta Alvarado & Daniel Rivas-Ramirez, 'A Milestone in Environmental and Future Generations' Rights Protection: Recent Legal Developments before the Colombian Supreme Court' (2018) 30 J Envtl L 519, p.522.
41 ‘Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others’ (Future Generations vs. Ministry of Environment and Others | UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform) <https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/co/national-case-law/future-generations-vs-ministry-environment-and-others> accessed 30 March 2024.
42 Held vs. Montana, (2023 Constitutional Court of Montana).
43 ‘Held v. Montana: A Win for Young Climate Advocates and What It Means for Future Litigation – Harvard Law School’ (Harvard Law School – Environmental & Energy Law Program, 6 September 2023) <https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2023/08/held- v-montana/> accessed 31 March 2024.
44 Skuntz AD, ‘Held v. State’ (2021) 1 Public Land & Resources Law Review 2, p.2.
45 Skuntz AD, ‘Held v. State’ (2021) 1 Public Land & Resources Law Review 2, p.3.
46 ‘Held v. Montana: A Win for Young Climate Advocates and What It Means for Future Litigation – Harvard Law School’ (Harvard Law School – Environmental & Energy Law Program, 6 September 2023) <https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2023/08/held-v-montana/> accessed 31 March 2024.
47 Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, (2020 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), Complaint p.2.
48 Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, (2020 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), Order p.56.
49 Ibid. p.6.
50 Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States, (2020 ECHR) no. 39371/20.
51 Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States, (2020 ECHR) no. 39371/20, court communication of case to defendant countries, p.1-2.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid. p.3.
54 ‘Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States’ (Climate Change Litigation, 28 October 2022) <https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al/> accessed 31 March 2024.
55 KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, (2020 ECHR) application no. 53600/20.
56 KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, (2020 ECHR) application no. 53600/20, observations, p.1-2.
57 KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, (2020 ECHR) application no. 53600/20, observations, no.159, 163.
58 ‘Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland (ECtHR)’ (Climate Change Litigation, 13 April 2024) <https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-and-others/> accessed 1 June 2024.
59 KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, (2024 ECHR) application no.53600/20, p.378.
60 Ibid. p.410 and 419.