Climate Change and Inequality: Pushing the Boundaries of Judicialization

Abstract

The increasing reliance on social rights in Latin America's climate litigation is often seen as reflecting the interplay between the climate crisis and the region's socioeconomic challenges. In light of this pressing convergence, this paper examines whether and how the intended outcomes of such litigation actually address the complex realities of the most vulnerable. Taking a nuanced understanding of the climate vulnerabilities exacerbated by Latin America's steep inequalities, it challenges the prevailing assumption that ensuring a healthy and safe climate is de facto and sufficiently beneficial for populations living in poverty and social exclusion. More specifically, it explores the potential of constitutional remedies, predominant in the region's climate litigation, to comprehensively redress the socio-ecological challenges faced by such groups, who disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change. Using Ecuador and Mexico as comparative case studies, the paper provides an overview of the legal opportunities and constraints of the remedial architecture within each country's constitutional protection mechanisms in realizing this vision. The analysis calls for a reimagined approach to constitutionalizing—and thus litigating—the climate crisis. It proposes adding a multidimensional perspective on the collective scope of remedies in line with the specific human rights duties being addressed—be it the duty to respect, protect, and fulfill. Through this exploration, the paper aims to broaden the ongoing legal horizons toward stronger remedies, leading to more equitable and comprehensive judicial responses to the climate crisis.