Keele Research Repository

This article examines the ruling of the Brazilian Supreme Court in the case PSB et al v Brazil (on Climate Fund) and its contribution to the climate litigation debate. It puts forward two main arguments. The first argument revolves around the politicisation of climate litigation. It reflects on the fact that the case was petitioned by four Brazilian political parties opposed to the current government in power. The second argument stresses that the force of recognising the Paris Agreement as a human rights treaty can be characterised as ambivalent: on the one hand, it serves as a vehicle for the affirmation and realisation of climate change as human rights; on the other, it can act as a form of political manipulation to disguise situations in which there is a lack of rights associated with climate change if there is a high degree of normative-judicial ineffectiveness. In doing so, this work broadens the discussion on climate litigation as a tool to address climate change and highlights research opportunities in the field of decolonial comparative law.