Greenpeace Argentina et al. v. Argentina

Around late April 2026, a broad coalition of actors—including individuals who are members of citizen assemblies from various provinces across the country, together with civil society organizations such as the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers (Asociación Argentina de Abogados/as Ambientalistas, AAdeAA), FARN, Greenpeace Argentina, Amnesty International, CELS, and CEPA—filed a collective amparo action before the Federal Court of Santa Rosa (La Pampa) against the National Government, seeking a declaration that Law No. 27,804 is unconstitutional and requesting an interim injunction ordering the immediate suspension of its application throughout the country.

Law No. 27,804, enacted on April 8, 2026, substantially amended Law No. 26,639 on Minimum Environmental Standards for the Preservation of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment. Its main amendments consisted of: restricting the scope of protection by requiring glaciers to perform specific hydrological functions in order to fall under legal protection; transferring to provincial authorities the power to determine which glaciers and periglacial environments are to be protected, thereby displacing the scientific role previously assigned to the Argentine Institute of Snow Research, Glaciology and Environmental Sciences (Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales, IANIGLA) under the former legislation; replacing the absolute prohibition on extractive activities in glacier areas with a prohibition subject exclusively to the provincial authorities' assessment of whether the activity ""significantly alters"" the ecosystem; and distorting the purpose of an instrument such as environmental impact assessment—effectively turning it into a means of authorizing all types of activities in this environment—and establishing strategic environmental assessment as an option available to provincial authorities.

The complaint sets out four grounds of unconstitutionality. First, it argues that the law violates the principle of environmental non-regression and progressive realization, as enshrined in Article 41 of the National Constitution and the Escazú Agreement, by manifestly reducing the level of protection previously attained. Second, it argues that the law dismantles the system of minimum environmental standards by delegating to the provinces the power to define the protected subject matter, thereby enabling what the plaintiffs refer to as ""environmental dumping"" among jurisdictions. Third, it contends that the law is incompatible with the MERCOSUR-EU Interim Trade Agreement, which entered into force on the same day that the Senate granted the bill preliminary approval and expressly prohibits weakening environmental protection standards in order to promote investment. Fourth, it argues that the legislative process was invalid because it failed to comply with the mandatory public participation standards established by the Escazú Agreement: the public hearing held in the Chamber of Deputies allowed fewer than 0.4% of the more than 102,000 registered participants to take part, under unreasonable deadlines and arbitrary selection criteria.

The complaint also incorporates climate-related arguments, contending that the weakening of protection for glaciers and periglacial environments is inconsistent with Law No. 27,520 on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, the Paris Agreement, and the commitments undertaken by Argentina in its First Biennial Transparency Report to the UNFCCC. It also invokes Advisory Opinion No. 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which recognized the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous right and established that States must refrain from adopting regressive measures in climate and environmental matters.

As of September 2026, the case remains pending.