Sacchi v. Argentina: Fighting for Indigenous Children’s Climate Rights

Sacchi v. Argentina: Fighting for Indigenous Children’s Climate Rights


On September 23, 2019, a group of sixteen children from twelve countries, ages ranging eight to eighteen, filed an official petition against five countries[1] under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). [2]  Sacchi v. Argentina[3] represents the first time in history where children have filed a formal petition under the Convention.[4]  Using the Sacchi Petition (Petition) as a case study, this Essay explores the rights and positions of Indigenous children within the international framework of children’s rights, and whether the Petition and future petitions represent a viable tool for Indigenous children in the United States of America (U.S.).

In Part I, I present background information about the UNCRC, the history of its adoption, and an overview of its structure.  In Part II, I focus on Sacchi v. Argentina and discuss the parties, claims, requests for relief, and potential challenges.  In Part III I explore potential outcomes, and in Part IV I provide a conclusion. Although U.S. indigenous children cannot file a petition against the U.S. because it is not a party to the Convention, they are still capable of holding more than forty other countries accountable for their insufficient actions to stop climate change.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child


According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UNCRC is “an international treaty that recognizes the human rights of children, defined as persons up to the age of 18 years.”[5]  The state parties, or countries that ratified the Convention, must ensure that all children—without discrimination in any form—benefit from special protection measures and assistance; have access to services such as education and health care; can develop their personalities, abilities and talents to the fullest potential; grow up in an environment of happiness, love and understanding; and are informed about and participate in, achieving their rights in an accessible and active manner.[6]

The UNCRC reaffirms the special distinction of children’s rights from human rights set out in several UN declarations, “[b]earing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his [or her] physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.’”[7]

Adoption Process

The Convention was adopted on November 20, 1989 and went into force on September 2, 1990.[8]  With 196 signatories as of October 2015, the UNCRC is the most ratified human rights instrument in history.[9]  Notably, the U.S. is the only UN member state that has not ratified the Convention despite having signed it.[10]  However, some research suggests that the U.S. has undertaken an article-by-article approach by ratifying and implementing other treaties that expand upon at least ten of the articles included in the UNCRC.[11]  Other articles that have not been elaborated upon in a separate treaty are largely seen in alignment with the U.S. legal system.[12]  Due to limited space, this paper will not discuss in detail the reasons for the U.S.’s failure to adopt the UNCRC even as late as the treaty’s 30th anniversary in 2019, though a number of scholars have conducted extensive analysis on this topic.[13]


The UNCRC is composed of fifty-four articles organized into three parts: Part I lists the rights of children as agreed upon by state parties, Part II outlines the process for state parties to administer the Convention, and Part III describes the ratification and amendment process.[14]  These articles are enforced by ongoing monitoring by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, an independent global body of eighteen children’s rights experts nominated and elected by state parties.[15]  Each state party is required to submit reports to the Committee within two years of ratification and every five years thereafter.[16]  The reports are publicly available on an online database.[17]

Rights for Indigenous Children

Within the UNCRC, three articles that specifically reference rights for Indigenous children can be applied in the context of climate change.  Article 17 recognizes the role of mass media and requires signatory countries to encourage media organizations to “have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous.”[18]  Although efforts to encourage mass media to focus on Indigenous children may be described in the state parties’ reports, recent climate related news suggests that more progress must be made.[19]  At a December 9, 2019 press conference during the most recent UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 25), it was youth activists, rather than the UN delegates who were convening the event, who took on the burden to redirect media attention on Indigenous youth. They stated that “[o]ur stories have been told over and over again. . . . It’s really about [Indigenous youth]. . . . We talk about our future, they talk about their present.”[20]

Article 29 mandates education to prepare children to “responsibl[y] li[ve] in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.”[21]  The education of children is also “directed to . . . [t]he development of respect for the natural environment.”[22]  Indigenous children’s right to education, particularly toward the development of respect for the natural environment, is being harmed because traditional knowledge, or indigenous worldviews of physical and spiritual connections between people and nature developed through a close association of place over generations, is frequently rejected in favor of western science for climate solutions.  Worse, climate change alters the cultural and ecological context in which traditional knowledge is preserved.[23]

Finally, Article 30 protects “the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language” for “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin.”[24]  This right is at significant risk of violation as climate change threatens to sever Indigenous children’s spiritual ties to their land through displacement and weaken traditional subsistence practices that are essential to their cultural identity through changing climate conditions.[25]

Rights Relevant for Climate Change Protection

Though no articles specifically refer to climate change, the following articles have been deemed relevant by the Petition and are discussed further in Part II.[26]  Article 3 discusses the responsibility of “public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies,” to act in the best interests of the child while “taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians,” etc., and “conform[ing] with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety [and] health.”[27]  If applied to climate change, Article 3 would require government institutions to take actions to decarbonize energy consumption and provide protections for the most vulnerable children, particularly Indigenous children, to act in their best interests.

Article 6 states that “every child has the inherent right to life,” and that “State parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”[28]  The disproportionate impacts of climate change clearly violate this right because, despite being among the least responsible for causing climate change, many tribal communities are continuously subject to life-threatening harm.[29]  Such disparities bring to question whether state parties are actually ensuring survival and development to the maximum extent possible.

Article 24 provides numerous requirements for state parties to ensure children’s right to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to the facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.”[30]  If the U.S. were a state party, it would be in violation of this right: a recent U.S. Climate and Health Assessment recognized that “Indigenous people, especially those who are dependent on the environment for sustenance or who live in geographically isolated or impoverished communities, are likely to experience greater exposure and lower resilience to climate-related health effects.”[31]

Lastly, the Petition refers to Article 30,[32] which was discussed in the previous section.

Optional Protocols to the Convention

Optional Protocols were added after the initial adoption of the Convention.  Between 2000 and 2002, two Optional Protocols were adopted and entered into force to address “the involvement of children in armed conflict and the use of children for sale, prostitution and pornography.”[33]  A third Optional Protocol allowing children to submit complaints, appeals, and petitions was adopted in 2011 and entered into force in 2014.[34]  Article 5 of the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure (OPIC)[35] is the basis for Sacchi v. Argentina.[36]

Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure

The OPIC contains twenty-four articles organized into four parts: Part I discusses the general provisions for the Committee’s competence to address violations of the UNCRC and guiding principles.[37]  Part II lists the procedure for communications (complaints or petitions) to be submitted by children and/or state parties in relation to UNCRC violations.[38]  Part III describes the inquiry procedure for “grave or systemic violations,”[39] which focuses on violations relating to the First and Second Optional Protocols.  For those violations, the Committee “invite[s] the State party to cooperate in the examination of the information and, to this end, to submit observations without delay with regard to the information concerned.”[40]  The Committee can go further and “designate one or more of its members to conduct an inquiry and to report urgently to the Committee. . . .  [T]he inquiry may include a visit to its territory.”[41]

For all other violations, the Committee’s actions appear to be limited to transmitting the Committee’s views and recommendations to UN specialized agencies for “the advisability of international measures likely to contribute to assisting State parties in achieving progress in the implementation of the rights recognized in the Convention and/or the Optional Protocols thereto.”[42]  Unfortunately, this reporting can be further weakened by a state party’s option to declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee.[43]  Lastly, Part IV includes the administrative procedures to report on, ratify, enter into force, and amend the Protocol.[44]  Notably, the Protocol allows state parties to denounce it[45] and for the Committee to not consider any violations that occurred before the Protocol entered into force on April 14, 2014.[46]

Sacchi v. Argentina

The Petition lists the parties, provides a scientific background of climate change which is framed as “the climate crisis,” describes the petitioners’ claims, and lists their requests for relief.[47]  The document is supplemented by extensive appendices that explain the petitioners’ narratives in detail, provide projection of climate physics and the consequences of further delay in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and analyze climate impacts on petitioners’ home countries and a few additional countries.[48]


The petitioners are the following individuals with their hometown, country, and age as of the date of the Petition:

  1. Chiara Sacchi (Haedo, Buenos Aires, Argentina; seventeen-years-old)
  2. Catarina Lorenzo (Salvador, Bahia, Brazil; twelve-years-old)
  3. Iris Duquesne (Bordeaux, Nouvelle-Aquitane, France; sixteen-years-old)
  4. Raina Ivanova (Hamburg, Germany; fifteen-years-old)
  5. Ridhima Pandey (Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India; eleven-years-old)
  6. David Ackley III (Majuro, Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands; sixteen-years-old)
  7. Ranton Anjain (Ebeye Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands; seventeen-years-old)
  8. Litokne Kabua (Ebeye Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands; sixteen-years-old)
  9. Deborah Morayo Adegbile (Lagos, Lagos State, Nigeria; twelve-years-old)
  10. Carlos Manuel (Koror, Palau; seventeen-years-old)
  11. Ayakha Melithafa (Ereste River, Western Cape, South Africa; seventeen-years-old)
  12. Greta Thunberg (Stockholm, Sodermanland and Uppland, Sweden; sixteen-years-old)
  13. Ellen-Anne (Kareusando, Lapland, Sweden; eight-years-old)
  14. Raslen Jbeli (Tabarka, Jendouba, Tunisia, seventeen-years-old)
  15. Alexandria Villaseñor (New York City, New York, United States of America; fourteen-years-old)
  16. Carl Smith (Akiak, Alaska, United States of America; seventeen-years-old)[49]

The respondents are the following countries with dates of ratification and the Convention entering into force 30 days later:

  1. The Argentine Republic (Argentina): ratified on December 4, 1990
  2. The Federative Republic of Brazil (Brazil): ratified on September 24, 1990
  3. The French Republic (France): ratified on August 7, 1990
  4. The Federal Republic of Germany (Germany): ratified on March 6, 1992
  5. The Republic of Turkey (Turkey): ratified on April 4, 1995[50]

The respondents are also among the majoremitters of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions[51] and countries that adopted the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure.[52]


The claims are based on the rights outlined in the convention, arguing that each of the respondents knowingly caused and perpetuated the climate crisis, thereby triggering human rights obligations and duties.  The petitioners claim that the following articles are being violated.

Under Article 6 of the UNCRC, the petitioners argue that “[e]ach respondent is exacerbating the deadly and foreseeable consequences of climate change, violating the petitioners’ right to life.”[53]  In particular, Petitioners Duquesne and Ivanova “have been exposed to frequent heatwaves in France and Germany that have killed tens and thousands of people across Europe.”[54]  Indigenous Petitioners Smith and Ellen-Anne are experiencing “increasingly hot temperatures [that] are threatening their thousand year-old subsistence traditions, which are intimately connected to their livelihoods and well-being.”[55]  Wildfires contributed to Petitioner Villaseñor’s severe asthma and the burning of Petitioner Jbeili’s neighbors’ homes.[56]  Petitioner Adegbile was also hospitalized several times for asthma due to “[d]irty air exacerbated by the increased heat.”[57]  Increased storms have flooded Jbeili’s school and killed his schoolmates, while a tropical storm ripped off Petitioner Anjain’s roof.[58]  Petitioner Melithafa’s water supply was at risk of shutdown due to drought and Petitioners Lorenzo and Anjain experience frequent water shortages.[59]  Additionally, Anjain and his father both were ill from dengue, a disease that used to be rare in their region.[60]

Under Article 24 of the UNCRC, the petitioners list health effects of climate change described under the previous article, as well as “climate-related emotional trauma,” including “feel[ings] of powerless[ness] and fears [of] what the future will bring,” “anxiety, mental trauma, [] sleep deprivation,” “sad[ness],” “anger,” and “despera[tion].”[61]  The petitioners argue that “by recklessly causing and perpetuating life-threatening climate change, the respondents have failed to take necessary preventative and precautionary measures to guarantee the petitioners’ right to health.”[62]

Under Article 30 of the UNCRC, the petition discusses the cultural impacts to indigenous Petitioners Smith, Ellen-Anne, Ackley, Anjain, and Kabua.  The petitioners argue that the respondents have

already jeopardized thousands years old subsistence practices of the indigenous petitioners from Alaska and the Sampi [region of Sweden], which are not just the main source of their livelihoods, but directly relate to a specific way of being, seeing, and acting in the world, and form part of their cultural identity. If the respondents continue their current emissions pathways, the world would warm enough to decimate indigenous cultures throughout the world.[63]

For Smith, extreme heat in Akiak, Alaska has reduced access to traditional hunting grounds and threatened the staple food supply of salmon. Erosion and flooding also threaten his community.[64]  Ellen-Anne’s cultural practice of herding and living closely with reindeer from a very young age is being threatened as increasing heat alters reindeer migration patterns further away from the Sami people.[65]  Ackley, Anjain, and Kabua also have already faced harm where “[r]ising[] seas, a warming and acidifying ocean, drought, and more severe storms” are affecting the “Marshallese culture [that] has evolved over millennia and is intimately connected with the oceans and islands.”[66]  The Marshallese risk loss of “traditional foods,” “traditional medicines,” and “ancient cultural ceremonies, like Kemen, the baby naming ceremony, that have been passed down over centuries.”[67]

Lastly, under Article 3 of the UNCRC, the petition argues that the respondents are in violation of the requirement to act in the best interests of children.  The claim states that “[b]y delaying decarbonization, despite all scientific evidence, the respondents’ climate policies have under-valued children’s lives and treated their present and future interests as lesser considerations.”[68]  Under-valuing children’s lives is against the best interest of children because it “prioritizes short-term economic interests over the rights of the child.”[69]


As a result of these claims, the petitioners request that the Committee adopt the following findings and recommendations for relief:

  1. “Find[] that climate change is a children’s rights crisis.”[70]
  2. “Find[] that each respondent, along with other states, has caused and is perpetuating the climate crisis by knowingly acting in disregard of the available scientific evidence regarding the measures needed to prevent and mitigate climate change.”[71]
  3. “Find[] that by recklessly perpetuating life-threatening climate change, each respondent is violating petitioners’ rights to life, health, and the prioritization of the child’s best interests, as well as the cultural rights of the petitioners from indigenous communities.”[72]
  4. “Recommend[] that the respondents review, and where necessary, amend their national and subnational laws and policies to ensure that mitigation and adaptation efforts are being accelerated to the maximum extent of available resources and on the basis of the best available scientific evidence to (i) protect the petitioners’ rights and (ii) make the best interests of the child a primary consideration, particularly in allocating the costs and burdens of climate change mitigation and adaption.”[73]
  5. “Recommend[] that each respondent initiate cooperative international action—and increase its efforts with respect to existing cooperative initiatives—to establish binding and enforceable measures to mitigate the climate crisis, prevent further harm to the petitioners and other children, and secure their inalienable rights.”[74]
  6. “Recommend[] that pursuant to Article 12, the respondents shall ensure the child’s right to be heard and to express their views freely, in all international, national, and subnational efforts to mitigate or adapt to the climate crisis and in all efforts taken in response to this Communication.”[75]

Potential Challenges

The Petition anticipates several potential challenges for admissibility and attempts to address them.  One significant challenge is the question of whether petitioners have already exhausted domestic remedies.  According to the OPIC, a petition is inadmissible if “[a]ll available domestic remedies have not been exhausted.  This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief.”[76]  Anticipating this challenge, the Petition acknowledges that the petitioners have not exhausted domestic remedies, but explains why this was not possible:  Children have a lesser ability to access the justice system due to the complexity of the system and reliance on adults who may “not be aware of children’s rights or know how to best support their children.”[77]

Pursuing remedies in domestic courts would also be unduly burdensome because “no single court could provide the same remedy sought in this petition against these five sovereigns,” and “[a]ttempting to exhaust remedies in Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey would be so costly . . . for the petitioners as to make any potentially available legal remedies an impossibility.”[78]  The legal claims also cannot be remedied in domestic courts because they require “diplomatic decision-making”[79] to address foreign states’ “failure to cooperate internationally.”[80]  Lastly, pursuing remedies in multiple jurisdictions “would cause unreasonable delay.”[81]

The Petition also faces challenges of timeliness; as mentioned previously, the OPIC Committee does not consider violations that occurred prior to when the OPIC entered into force on April 14, 2014.[82]  In response, the Petition argues that because “the respondents continue to perpetuate climate change through their acts or omissions,”[83] the violation can be considered to be occurring even after 2014.  Furthermore, the petitioners note that the timeliness limitation is waived by the OPIC under Article 7(g), [84] which provides that the facts of a communication are admissible even if they “occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State party concerned, [provided] those facts continued after that date.”[85]  Because “the effects of climate change will continue to harm the petitioners for the foreseeable future, the continuing violations exception applies to Article 20.”[86]  Thus, the petitioners claim that their complaint is timely.

Lastly, the petitioners face the challenge of admissibility due to the “same matter [having] already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement,”[87] but the Petition quickly dismisses this challenge.  The Petition frames the subject of the complaint narrowly, stating that it is about “Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey’s violations of the petitioners’ rights through their contributions to climate change.”[88]  In this specific framing, it is safe to assume that there are no parallel international proceedings “pending in any other international proceeding or settlement, nor does [this Petition] duplicate, to the petitioners’ knowledge, any Communication pending before or already examined by the Committee.”[89]

Potential Outcomes and Recommendations

Potential Outcomes

Based on the articles of the OPIC, the potential outcomes are clear.  The Committee must first find the Petition admissible.  Assuming the petition is admitted, the most that the Committee can do is require the state parties to respond to the communication within six months of receiving it from the Committee; invite state parties to submit “further information about any measures the State party has taken in response to its views or recommendations;”[90] and share the information with other UN bodies in order to identify viable international measures.[91]  Unfortunately, there appears to be no action that goes beyond reporting, and the reporting can be denounced, or worse, the Committee can be declared incompetent.  Furthermore, if the failure of the UNFCCC COP 25 to secure meaningful commitments for climate action is any measure,[92] relying on UN agencies to identify solutions will not be a practical approach.

With respect to Indigenous children seeking to hold the U.S. directly accountable for emitting emissions, a UNCRC petition is unfortunately not a viable option.  As the U.S. has demonstrated a historical reluctance to ratify treaties that are universally accepted by other UN members and even pull out of one,[93] it is even less likely that it will ratify the UNCRC or adopt the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure.

What is more hopeful is the potential influence of the Petition for other countries.  The Petition has provided a pathway for Indigenous children in the U.S. to utilize the rules of procedure under the OPIC to file petitions against other respondents that have adopted the OPIC, as petitioner Smith has demonstrated.  There are currently forty-six parties to the OPIC,[94] providing forty-one potential respondents to hold accountable.  The Petition has also brought more awareness to the harms of climate change to Indigenous children not only to the UN but also mass media, as more members of the public are gaining awareness through regular global protests and strikes.[95]  Rather than representing an outcome or an end, the Petition should be seen as a means to or a beginning of greater action.


In an uncertain time of increasingly severe climate events, one of the most hopeful responses has been the increasingly courageous leadership by children, especially Indigenous children.  While Sacchi v. Argentina is historic for being the first petition submitted under the OPIC, it is also historic in its scale of attempting to hold multiple countries accountable at the same time.  For children and adults alike, this precedent is a monumental step forward in international climate diplomacy and defense of children’s rights.

[1] Ben Arnoldy, Greta and 15 Kids Just Claimed Their Climate Rights at the UN, Earthjustice, Sept. 23, 2019, []; #ChildrenVsClimateCrisis, [].

[2] G.A. Res. 44/25, Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989).

[3] Petition Submitted under Article 5 of the Third Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Sacchi v. Argentina (Sept. 23, 2019) [hereinafter Sacchi v. Argentina].

[4] Arnoldy, supra note 1.

[5] Frequently Asked Questions on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, [] [hereinafter UNICEF FAQ].

[6] Id.

[7] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, pmbl.

[8] Id.

[9] UNICEF FAQ, supra note 5.

[10] Id.

[11] David M. Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 81, 85–86 (2006).

[12]Id. at 89.

[13] See e.g., Diego Lopez, The Time Is Now to Ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 52 U.S.F. L. Rev. 477 (2018).

[14] See G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2.

[15] Implementing and Monitoring the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, [].

[16] Id.

[17] See Treaty Bodies Search, United Nations Human Rights:  Office of the High Commissioner, [].

[18] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 17(d).

[19] See Isla Binnie, Activist Thunberg Turns Spotlight on Indigenous Struggle at Climate Summit, Reuters (Dec. 9, 2019 6:40 AM), [].

[20] Frank Jordans and Aritz Parra, Too Much of a Greta Thing? Activist Urges Focus on Others, Associated Press (Dec. 9, 2019), [].

[21] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 29(d).

[22] Id.

[23] See Patricia Cochran et al., Indigenous Frameworks for Observing and Responding to Climate Change in Alaska, 120 Climatic Change 557, 559 (2013).

[24] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 30.

[25] See Julie Koppel Maldonado et al., The Impact of Climate Change on Tribal Communities in the U.S.: Displacement, Relocation and Human Rights, 120 Climatic Change 601 (2013).

[26] See infra Part II.B.

[27] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 3.

[28] Id. art. 6.

[29] See Maldonado, supra note 25, at 602.

[30] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 24.

[31] Janet L. Gamble et al., Ch. 9: Populations of Concern, in The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment 247, 253 (2016).

[32] G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 2, art. 30.

[33] UNICEF, For Every Child, Every Right: The Convention on the Rights of the Child at a Crossroads 67 (2019).  See also G.A. Res. 54/263, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (Mar. 16, 2001).

[34] UNICEF, supra note 33, at 67.

[35] G.A. Res. 66/138, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Children on a Communications Procedure (Apr. 14, 2014).

[36] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, at 11, ¶ 49.

[37] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 1–4.

[38] Id. art. 5–12.

[39] Id. art. 13.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] Id. art. 13.

[44] Id. art. 15–24.

[45] Id. art. 22.

[46] Id. art. 20. See Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, [].

[47] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, at i-ii.

[48] See Id. at appendices A-D.

[49] Id. ¶ 34–48, at 8–11, ¶158, at 43.  Additional geographic information was added for consistency and clarification.  The Petition does not provide Ellen-Anne’s last name but “[a]dditional personal information of the petitioners is on file with the petitioners’ legal representatives and is available upon request.”  Id. ¶ 50, at 11.

[50] Id, ¶ 54–59, at 12–13.

[51] Id. ¶ 210–11, at 59.

[52] 11. d Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, United Nations Treaty Collection, [] [hereinafter United Nations Treaty Collection].

[53] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, at 79.

[54] Id. ¶ 267, at 81.

[55] Id. ¶ 267, at 81–82.

[56] Id. ¶ 268, at 82.

[57] Id. ¶ 269, at 82.

[58] Id. ¶ 270, at 82.

[59] Id. ¶ 271, at 82.

[60] Id. ¶ 272, at 82.

[61] Id. ¶ 284–85, at 84–85.

[62] Id. ¶ 285, at 85.

[63] Id. ¶ 293, at 88.

[64] Id. ¶ 295, at 88.

[65] Id. ¶ 296, at 88–89.

[66] Id. ¶ 298, at 89.

[67] Id.

[68] Id. ¶ 304, at 90.

[69] Id. ¶ 307, at 91.

[70] Id. ¶ 326, at 96.

[71] Id. ¶ 327, at 96.

[72] Id. ¶ 328, at 96.

[73] Id. ¶ 329, at 96.

[74] Id. ¶ 330, at 96–97.

[75] Id. ¶ 331, at 97.

[76] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 7(e).

[77] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, ¶ 310, at 91.

[78] Id. ¶ 312, at 92.

[79] Id. ¶ 315, at 93.

[80] Id. ¶ 316, at 94.

[81] Id. ¶ 317, at 94.

[82] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 20.

[83] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, ¶ 319, at 94.

[84] Id. ¶ 320, at 94–95.

[85] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 7(g).

[86] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, ¶ 323, at 96.

[87] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 7(d).

[88] Sacchi v. Argentina, supra note 3, ¶ 324, at 96.

[89] Id.

[90] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 11.

[91] G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 35, art. 15.

[92] See Somini Sengupta, U.N. Climate Talks End With Few Commitments and a ‘Lost’ Opportunity, N.Y. Times (Dec. 15, 2019), [].

[93] See Lisa Friedman, Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement, N.Y. Times (Nov. 4, 2019), [].

[94] United Nations Treaty Collection, supra note 52.

[95] Jennifer Peltz & Frank Jordans, Associated Press, ‘I Want a Future’: Global Youth Protests Urge Climate Action, U.S. News & World Rep. (Sept. 20, 2019, 7:51 PM), [].