Green Justice: Court Rulings That Protect Our Planet

Collab: Martina Goldsztein. Lawyer, specialist in Environmental and Administrative Law. Honorary lecturer at the University of Buenos Aires.

Founder of Environmental & + .

Did you know that in Argentina, we could say that each province is the “owner” of its natural resources? But also, did you know that the national government is responsible for protecting the environment across the whole country?. This tug-of-war between what a province can do and what the Nation can decide creates a lot of debate… and sometimes, even some problems.

That’s where the Argentina Supreme Court steps in. In recent years, it has become a true environmental referee. Through key rulings (all based on Argentine law), it has shown how federalism isn’t just about fighting over who holds more power, but can actually be a tool to help protect the planet. Here, I’m going to tell you about some of the most important decisions:

• Riachuelo: The Ruling That Changed Everything

In 2008, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the case “Mendoza v. National State” concerning the severe pollution of the Riachuelo River in Buenos Aires. Rather than just assigning blame, the Court ordered the National Government, the Province of Buenos Aires, and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to work together, reach an agreement, and begin cleaning up the river. It also established a special authority ACUMAR (the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Authority) and took on the role of monitoring compliance. This decision marked a turning point: it was the first major step toward recognizing that environmental protection must be a shared responsibility.

• Atuel River: Water Belongs to No One

In the conflict between the provinces of La Pampa and Mendoza, the Supreme Court made a clear statement: the Atuel River does not belong solely to Mendoza.

It is a shared natural resource and must be used fairly and equitably. In rulings from 2017 and 2020, the Court ordered both provinces to agree on a minimum water flow to prevent further environmental degradation in the Pampean ecosystem. The key principle invoked was the federal duty of good faith: no province can act without considering the rights and needs of the others.

• Glaciers: A Baseline That Cannot Be Lowered

In 2019, a mining company (Barrick Gold) and the Province of San Juan challenged Argentina’s Glacier Protection Law, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it interfered with provincial powers over natural resources. But the Supreme Court upheld the law. It ruled that the National Government has the authority to establish a minimum standard for environmental protection a baseline that all provinces must respect. Provinces are free to go above that standard, but not below it. As a result, glaciers were officially recognized as shared natural assets of national interest, protected for the benefit of the entire country.

What Did We Learn From All This?: Basically, that federalism is not an excuse to pollute or to look the other way. On the contrary: it's an invitation for different jurisdictions to cooperate in protecting what belongs to everyone. Because air, water, and natural resources don’t recognize provincial boundaries. Now more than ever, we need public policies that rise to the challenge of the environmental crisis. And to support that, we also need an active judiciary one that enforces the rules of the “game”.

As always: protecting the environment is not just the responsibility of the State. It’s also a citizen duty #ForABetterWorld. Knowing these rulings shows us not only that we have rights, but that we can demand they be upheld.

In a world increasingly affected by climate change, there’s no room for political selfishness—or for indifference.