La Rioja

Santiago del Estero

Chaco

San Juan

Catamarca

La Pampa

Mendoza

Misiones

Formosa

Neuquén

Río Negro

Santa Fe

Tucumán

Chubut

Tierra del Fuego

Corrientes

Córdoba

Salta

Jujuy

Buenos Aires

Santa Cruz

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

San Luis

Entre Ríos

Argentina

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On September 1, 2026, the Asociación Civil de Abogados, Abogado/as y Profesionales Ambientalistas (AAdeAA), and the Centro de Ex Combatientes Islas Malvinas La Plata (CECIM) filed a preventive collective environmental damage action against Rockhopper Exploration PLC and Navitas Petroleum Development and Production Limited before the Federal Court of Río Grande. Plaintiffs seek to prevent the development of the “León Marino” (Sea Lion) offshore oil project, located approximately 220 kilometers north of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands), on areas of the continental shelf over which Argentina claims sovereignty.

Plaintiffs allege that the large-scale offshore oil project is proceeding without an environmental impact assessment or authorization from the competent Argentine authorities and poses serious risks to marine and coastal ecosystems. They invoke, among other provisions, Argentina's General Environmental Law, Law No. 27,520 on Global Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, the UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement. The complaint argues that the project would exacerbate climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and alleges that its development would generate approximately 9 million metric tons of CO2, with more than 100 million metric tons of CO2 resulting from combustion of the oil produced. Plaintiffs also invoke the human right to a healthy environment, a fundamental right to a healthy climate, and the rights of Nature.

On September 16, 2026, Judge Mariel E. Borruto granted a precautionary measure ordering Defendants to refrain from materially implementing the project, including drilling, installation of permanent subsea and production infrastructure, commencement of commercial hydrocarbon extraction, and related terrestrial and port works. The suspension remains in effect until the environmental impact assessment procedure required by Argentine law is conducted and the competent authority issues a decision, or until otherwise ordered by the court.

In granting interim relief, the court applied the preventive and precautionary principles and found that the plaintiffs were not required at this stage to establish with certainty that environmental damage would occur. The court also relied on Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinions OC-23/17 and OC-32/25, emphasizing the autonomous and collective dimensions of the right to a healthy environment and the protection of ecosystems and present and future generations in the context of climate change. 

As of September 2026, the underlying preventive action remains pending.

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.

In 2026, Asociación Foro Ecologista de Paraná and Asociación Argentina de Juristas filed a lawsuit against the National Government and the provinces of Chubut, Santa Cruz, Río Negro, Neuquén, and La Pampa, in connection with several forest fire events that occurred in Patagonia. The main objective of the lawsuit is to require the defendants to adopt the necessary measures to prevent and mitigate the risk of forest fires and extreme climate events in Defendant provinces, within the framework of the development of an Interjurisdictional Climate and Wildfire Risk Management Plan. In addition, the plaintiffs request the production of technical information concerning the impact of the forest fires that occurred in Patagonia on carbon sinks, as well as an estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from these events, among other matters. Finally, they request that glaciers and the periglacial environment be recognized as rights-bearing entities, entitled to autonomous legal protection.

The lawsuit addresses the issue of forest fires in Patagonia as a matter of climate change adaptation, resulting from prolonged droughts, intense heat waves, and extreme winds, in a context characterized by a lack of public policies for adaptation and prevention. In this context, the plaintiffs emphasize the importance of protecting glaciers and water basins because of the ecosystem services they provide in relation to wildfire risk. At the same time, the lawsuit highlights the emissions generated by these events and the destruction of carbon sinks, which may affect the international commitments undertaken by the country.

In early 2025, it was reported that the company Algoservicios S.A. had cleared part of a native forest located in the town of Logroño, in the 9 de Julio department of the province of Santa Fe, to install a cotton ginning plant. Extraction activities in this forest are expressly prohibited by Law No. 26,331, the minimum standards law for the protection of native forests.

On July 1, 2025, the Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 15 of the Judiciary of Santa Fe filed an environmental protection lawsuit requesting the cessation of the deforestation and the restoration of the destroyed portion of the forest. In the lawsuit, the Prosecutor presented significant climate-related arguments. In particular, it contended that the company’s conduct was inconsistent with the legal commitments undertaken by Argentina to address climate change. To that end, the Prosecutor emphasized the role of forest conservation as a climate change mitigation measure and argued that such obligations are binding not only by state actors but also by non-state actors.

On September 30, 2025, Acting Judge Dr. Jorge da Silva granted the injunction and ordered the definitive cessation of the land-clearing activities, declared Algoservicios S.A. responsible for the environmental damage caused, and ordered the company to fully remediate the damage. In reaching this decision, the court considered that the requirement of “manifest illegality” for the admissibility of the environmental injunction was met by the violation of national and provincial regulations mandating adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. The court expressly referred to the Paris Agreement (ratified by Law No. 27,270), which is binding upon Argentina, as well as to Law No. 27,520 (National Minimum Standards Law on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation). It also invoked Article 33 of the Constitution of the Province of Santa Fe, which establishes the duty of every person to cooperate in climate action. According to the court, the clearing of a specially protected native forest constituted a serious infringement of climate mitigation obligations, and it endorsed the Prosecutor’s position that such obligations extend beyond public authorities to the private sector.

The judgment has become final, no appeal having been lodged by the defendants, and is currently under implementation.

Geography

Argentina

Recent cases