On the Duarte Agostinho Decision
We may not readily describe Duarte Agostinho as a success. But it does offer an excellent opportunity to clarify what we mean by ‘success’ in this context. Arguably, this depends on our expectations – whether that’s to generate attention, trigger mobilization, seek judicial engagement with an issue, clarify the law, or pursue a given outcome, among others.
In New Zealand, as in many jurisdictions, the law specifies certain minimum age limits for acts such as getting married (16 years), enlisting in the armed forces (17 years), purchasing alcohol (18 years), entering contracts (18 years) and so on. One particular age limit, that relating to voting (18 years), has recently come under scrutiny as a result of the advocacy efforts of Make It 16, a group campaigning for the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in New Zealand. As part of its campaign, Make It 16 commenced litigation, which eventually culminated in the New Zealand Supreme Court declaring in Make It 16 v Attorney-General that the legislated minimum voting age was inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination, and that the inconsistency had not been justified.
The strategy of challenging a plurality of states directly before international adjudicating bodies has been, so far, a youth’s distinct move in the field of climate litigation, and it is by far the largest vehicle for transnational complaints. Our contribution provides an overview of the relevant cases, many of which still pending, and tries to pinpoint the drivers and possible trajectories of a global phenomenon which could go some way towards redressing the injustice the Global South is suffering as a result of global warming.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters