Over a decade has passed since discussions began on the Escazú Agreement, Latin America’s landmark environmental treaty aimed at improving access to information, addressing widespread impunity for crimes against environmental defenders, and granting communities stronger consultation rights regarding large development projects. The agreement came into force in 2021 and has since been ratified by 16 countries, with Dominica being the latest to do so in April 2024. Although the agreement is only in its fourth year, its implementation is already influencing litigation, often successfully upholding citizens’ rights.
For instance, Panama’s Supreme Court declared last year that legislation granting a Canadian company a 20-year copper mining concession was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the approval, based on an outdated environmental impact assessment, violated the Escazú Agreement’s aim of providing access to environmental information. In some countries, international treaties automatically become part of national law and are immediately open to lawsuits.
Mexico’s highest court referenced Escazú in a 2022 decision halting a major port expansion project on the Gulf coast in Veracruz, ruling in favor of the community and environmental defenders seeking to protect reefs. Similarly, Argentina’s federal court in Mar del Plata halted fossil fuel exploration activities in 2022, citing the lack of public participation and information required by the Escazú Agreement. However, subsequent appeals overturned this ruling.
In Argentina, judges also rejected Greenpeace’s request for a precautionary injunction over exploration, despite a supportive statement from the public prosecutor stressing non-compliance with Escazú. The Escazú Agreement is being used in the Caribbean to challenge government attempts to avoid legal scrutiny. In Antigua and Barbuda, two Barbudans, Jacklyn Frank and John Mussington, are fighting against the construction of a private airport to serve luxury resorts.
They argue that the development, which has been surrounded by land-grabbing claims, is destroying vital ecosystems and that ordinary Barbudans were not consulted. The Privy Council in London (the Commonwealth’s top appeals court) ruled in February that Ms. Frank and Mr.
Mussington had the right to bring the case, in line...
Brazilian Foreigner.
