Environmental Human Rights and Climate Change: Current Status and Future Prospects

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Bridget LewisEnvironmental Human Rights and Climate Changehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1960-0_1

1. Introduction to Environmental Human Rights and Climate Change

Bridget Lewis¹  

(1)

Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Bridget Lewis

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

In recent decades we have observed an increased engagement with human rights law as a tool for activating environmental claims and pursuing environmental justice. We have reached an understanding that the relationship between environmental protection and human rights is mutually supportive, yet at the same time characterised by tensions and complexities which make it difficult to articulate clearly and comprehensively in law. This chapter introduces the concept of environmental human rights, and outlines the areas which will be examined further in the remainder of the book. In particular, it identifies the two key topics which are the subject of specific analysis, being the notion of a standalone human right to a good environment and the applicability of environmental human rights to climate change. This analysis leads to the conclusion that, while the environmental dimensions of existing rights have much to offer in addressing climate change and other environmental challenges, the concept of a standalone environmental right remains problematic, particularly if we seek to include it in the body of international human rights law. It is not possible to define a right to a good environment in a way which is at the same time theoretically cogent, practically useful, legally enforceable and politically acceptable for States. Rather than pursue recognition of a new right within international law, work should instead focus on clarifying and developing the environmental dimensions of existing human rights to strengthen the interdependent relationship between the environment and human rights.

1.1 Human Rights and the Environment: A Mutually Supportive Yet Complex Relationship

In recent decades the relationship between humans and the environment has become the subject of considerable analysis and critical thought. The global challenge of climate change and its wide-ranging impacts on the Earth’s ecosystems has highlighted the fragility of the natural world and its vulnerability to human interference, while forcing us to confront our own attitudes towards natural resources and the way we consume them. Within this context we have also observed an increased engagement with human rights law as a tool for activating environmental claims and pursuing environmental justice. We have reached an understanding that the relationship between environmental protection and human rights is mutually supportive. This has been most recently articulated by John Knox, former UN Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. A key theme of Knox’s final report to the Human Rights Council (2018) was the interdependence of protection of both the environment and human right. At the same time, this interdependent relationship is also characterised by tensions and complexities which make it difficult to articulate clearly and comprehensively in law.

Humans’ enduring reliance on the environment as a source of sustenance and prosperity, as well as a provider of spiritual and cultural enrichment, means that protection of that environment underpins the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights. Many rights recognised by international and domestic law possess environmental dimensions. These rights, such as the right to health, the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to adequate housing, are all potentially affected by poor environmental conditions, and in this sense a good environment can be seen as a precondition to the full enjoyment of human rights (Knox 2018: 2).

At the same time, protection of the environment can be best achieved where human rights guarantees are strong, as violations of human rights (especially civil and political rights) often go hand in hand with corruption and abuses of process which render the environment vulnerable to vested interests and the pursuit of personal or political gains. Strong protections of human rights such as freedom of information and expression, the right to vote in free elections and the right to equality before the law can help to strengthen environmental protections and promote sustainable development (Knox 2018: 2). As Gearty (2010: 13) has powerfully explained:

It is tempting in the environmental context to move directly to the economic and social, bypassing the civil and political as being concerned with a different set of issues. But access to courts, the ability to protest, and the capacity to obtain information are all central features of the struggle to achieve better environmental protection…Even in democratic countries guided by the rule of law and informed by respect for human dignity, this has not been an easy matter: protest has been prohibited and then disrupted, protesters beaten, arrested, often jailed. In nondemocratic countries matters have been of course much worse. The ability to use the language of human rights as a shield against state power, this entitlement to declare that an unwelcome message is guarded by the civil and political rights adhering to the messenger, does important protective work in a hostile political environment, making communication both less difficult and less dangerous.

Yet this understanding of a mutually supportive relationship between human rights and the environment fails to accommodate other, more ecocentric understandings of our relationship with the natural world. Indeed, there are strong criticisms that any talk of human rights in relation to the environment implies an anthropocentric view of the planet which is incompatible with environmental protection and which perpetuates the sort of exploitative and possessory attitudes towards nature which have caused widespread environmental destruction and degradation over the course of human history and which have led to global environmental crises such as climate change (Handl 1992; Adelman 2015). There are foundational issues surrounding how we construct our relationship with the environment and how that relationship ought to be captured within law and legal processes (Grear and Kotze 2015).

Consequently, while there is widespread recognition that human rights and the environment must both be protected, and an understanding that there are ways in which these objectives could be pursued concurrently, there remains considerable debate about exactly how this ought to be achieved. In particular, there is a lack of consensus about how (and whether) international and domestic law can enshrine an integrated approach to human rights and environmental protection, or whether the two ought to remain in separate legal domains (Anton and Shelton 2011: 118–120).

The mutually supportive connection between human rights and the environment has been invoked in relation to a number of complex issues, such as climate change, sustainable development and poverty-reduction, yet it is not always clear how this can work in practice. Difficulties here include identifying appropriate rights-holders and duty-bearers to formulate a legal claim and proving the requisite causal connection to establish a breach. There are also significant challenges presented by the need to balance the various complex and at times competing interests in the context of States’ multiple duties and finite resources. With respect to a problem like climate change, where environmental degradation takes many forms, unfolds across State borders and over generations, and is the cumulative result of the actions of many State and non-State actors, applying traditional norms of human rights protection can be especially problematic.

However, this uncertainty and complexity has not deterred the use of human rights language and processes to pursue environmental-based claims. For example, a number of cases have been successful in the European Court of Human Rights where claimants have pursued their governments for breaches of human rights flowing from environmental harms.¹ The appeal of framing environmental harm as a human rights problem has been due both to the perceived juridical superiority of human rights and the moral and rhetorical weight which comes with labelling something a human rights issue. In many jurisdictions human rights enjoy a status which can trump other legal claims, particularly where they are enshrined in constitutional protections (Weston and Bollier 2013; Grear and Kotze 2015; O’Gorman 2017). Given that most environmental law does not possess the same level of authority, there is a clear appeal to being able to frame an environmental claim in human rights terms.

Furthermore, the moral weight which comes with the concept of human rights means that, as Kiss and Shelton (2007: 238) have argued, the use of human rights language can exercise a ‘compliance pull’ which can be harnessed to achieve environmental objectives. On a strategic level, in many cases human rights law imposes clearer substantive obligations on governments which might be more easily relied on than relevant environmental laws and offer a better chance of holding the government accountable (Boyle 2012). The combination of these factors has resulted in a notable increase in the number of environmental human rights claims in recent years. As this body of jurisprudence has grown it has consolidated as an avenue for seeking redress for environmental harm which impacts on the rights of individuals and communities.

1.2 Defining ‘Environmental Human Rights’

This book examines a body of law and legal theory which it categorises as ‘environmental human rights’. The category is broad and includes a diversity of formulations of varying legal status. One key area of environmental human rights encompasses the environmental aspects of other human rights, many of which have formed the basis of the legal claims referred to above, such as the right to life, the right to health, or the right to private and family life. Also included within environmental human rights are other laws at the international, regional and national levels which use the language of rights to grant environmental entitlements, establish environmental guarantees or impose environmental duties. These include, for example, constitutional guarantees of a right to a clean, healthy or decent environment, as well as constitutional duties which require governments to ensure protection and conservation of the environment. There are also a number of regional human rights instruments which recognise similar environmental human rights and duties, as well as soft-law instruments which articulate the importance of the environment to the fulfilment of human rights. By looking at these various forms of environmental rights, this book aims to map the relationship between human rights and the environment within legal structures and to help identify possible areas for future development.

In defining the scope of ‘environmental human rights’, a distinction needs to be made between this category of substantive rights which provide environmental guarantees or possess environmental dimensions, and a separate body of rights sometimes called ‘environmental rights’, which are more procedural in nature (Shelton 1991–1992: 104–105). ‘Environmental rights’ are principally found in environmental law and include the rights of individuals and communities to be fully informed about environmental impacts and to participate in decisions which affect their environment.² They also extend to rights to compensation or redress for environmental harm. While these rights are obviously relevant to cases of environmental degradation, the environmental harm per se is not actionable, only the lack of due process related to such harm, and they should not be interpreted as giving rise to substantive rights (Merrills 1996: 39).

Another body of rights which needs to be distinguished here are ‘rights of the environment’. This is an emerging field of law which can be traced back to Christopher Stone’s (1972) influential work Should Trees Have Standing? and the theories of wild law and earth jurisprudence (Cullinan 2011; Burdon 2010). This body of law grants legal rights to natural objects such as rivers, lakes and mountains, or even to nature itself. Recent, world-leading examples can be seen in New Zealand, where the Urewera Forest and Whanganui River have been granted legal personality (Te Urewera Act 2014 (NZ); Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ); Iorns Magallanes 2012; 2015a, b). In Ecuador, the Constitution of 2008 states in Article 71 that:

Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.

While these sorts of laws have the potential to alter fundamentally the way our law recognises and protects the environment, they are not a form of human rights properly understood—indeed, the separation of the environment from human interests is one of the key reasons these developments are so exciting—and therefore they not included in the body of ‘environmental human rights’ under primary examination in this book.

1.3 Two Key Issues: Climate Change and the Right to a Good Environment

In conducting an examination of environmental human rights and their potential future direction, this book identifies two key topics for specific examination. The first is climate change, which is the biggest environmental challenge facing the international community, and which is already causing observable adverse impacts across the Earth’s ecosystems (Alexander et al. 2013). Predicted impacts include increases in the Earth’s surface and ocean temperatures, changes to the volume of glaciers and ice sheets, increases in the frequency and severity of severe weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts and rising sea levels, with consequential impacts on biodiversity and vegetation (Alexander et al. 2013: 17, 21, 23).

Viewed cumulatively, these impacts represent an environmental challenge on a scale not previously encountered and demanding serious, long-term and sincere commitment and cooperation from all nations. Separately, each of these impacts has potentially serious consequences for human communities. These include negative health consequences from heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms (Bernstein et al. 2007: 48; Alexander et al. 2013: 23; OHCHR 2009: [32]). Incidences of cardiorespiratory and infectious diseases are expected to increase and vector-borne diseases such as malaria are likely to spread into new areas (Bernstein et al. 2007: 48; OHCHR 2009: [32]; Cameron 2010: 702; Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007: 19705). Food and water insecurity are anticipated to increase due to changes in rainfall patterns and melt-water, and rising sea-levels, exacerbating existing pressures on food and water in areas already at risk from drought, overpopulation and poverty (Bernstein et al. 2007: 48–49; OHCHR 2009: [29]; Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007: 19704). Damage to housing and infrastructure is predicted due to rising sea levels, storms and floods (Parry et al. 2007: 333, 672; Rolnik 2009: [13]), and it is expected that millions of people will face displacement (McAdam and Saul 2010).

These impacts have recognised consequences for the enjoyment of human rights. Human rights such as the rights to health, food, water, housing, self-determination and even the right to life are threatened by climate change, and there is a growing movement advocating for greater utilisation of human rights language and principles to articulate concerns about the human impacts of climate change (see for example Bell 2013; Caney 2009; Doelle 2004; Humphreys 2010; Knox 2009–2010; Lewis 2010, 2016, 2018; Limon 2009; Pedersen 2010; Stephens 2010).

In recent years we have seen the first attempts at litigation of climate change issues using human rights law. In 2005 a group of Inuit peoples petitioned the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, alleging that the United States was in breach of its obligations under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) by failing to regulate greenhouse gas emission, which they claimed were causing loss of sea-ice and other weather changes affecting their livelihoods and traditional ways of life (Watt-Cloutier 2005). While the petition was ultimately unsuccessful, it captured the attention of those looking for ways to hold governments accountable for the human impacts of climate change, and a body of climate litigation has since emerged across a range of jurisdictions.

In 2015 the Lahore High Court ordered the Pakistan Government to implement its National Climate Change Policy, finding that the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens found in the Constitution (Leghari v Pakistan 2015: 6). Also in 2015, the well-publicised case of Urgenda v The Netherlands used human rights principles to give content to the Dutch government’s duty of care to its citizens, which the court held had been breached by a failure to adopt stronger policies on climate change. A similar case is underway in the United States, where a group of 21 young people together with climate scientist James Hansen (who is representing future generations), have launched a constitutional claim against the Government based on its failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite knowing the harms of climate change (Juliana v United States of America 2016; Peel and Osofsky 2018). Other litigation is proposed in the European Court of Human Rights, where a group of Portuguese young people plan to bring a claim against 47 European governments for their failure to address the future impacts of climate change (Crowd Justice 2017). These human rights-based approaches to climate litigation are gaining momentum and it is expected that more advocacy groups will seek to harness human rights laws in such a manner.

Given the significance of climate change as both an environmental and human rights issue, any analysis of environmental human rights must therefore consider how such rights apply to climate change. Arguably any configuration of an environmental human right which did not have potential to address climate change impacts would be significantly limited in its usefulness. Further, any new development in environmental human rights will require the support of nation states, who will inevitably be mindful of the context of climate change in assessing such new proposals. The book therefore provides an analysis of the application of environmental human rights to climate change, noting that the transnational, cumulative and intergenerational impacts of climate change create difficulties for the application of even well-established human rights. It is argued, however, that human rights-based approaches to climate change and the use of environmental human rights can be useful, particularly by helping to identify vulnerable individuals and groups, articulating impacts and balancing competing priorities. Significantly, environmental human rights can be an extremely useful advocacy tool, lending moral weight to calls for greater climate action and drawing attention to the significant and serious human rights consequences of climate change.

The second specific topic which is examined in this book is the concept of a standalone right to a good environment. As will be explained in Chap. 2, many human rights recognised in international, regional or domestic law possess environmental dimensions. The rights to food, water and health, for example, are clearly dependent on environmental conditions, and in a number of cases environmental damage or degradation has been held to amount to a violation of specific human rights.³ Beyond identifying the environmental dimensions of other rights, some jurisdictions recognise a separate, independent right to an environment of a particular quality. This is referred to for convenience as a right to a good environment however, as will be shown in Chap. 4, there are a variety of formulations for such a right found in many regional and domestic laws, although it is not recognised in a multilateral treaty of widespread adoption.

Proposals for broader adoption of a right to a good environment have been put forward by a number of scholars in the field, many of whom have argued that the inter-connectedness of the environment and human rights described above should lead to the conclusion that humans possess a right to a good environment (Downs 1993; Symonides 1992; Rodriguez-Rivera 2001). Despite this support, there is little consensus on what such a right should entail or even what the current status of the right is within international human rights law (Pevato 1999), and a number of scholars have argued against its use (Merrills 1996; Boyle 1996; Hill et al. 2004; Handl 2001).

This book attempts to clarify the status and scope of the right to a good environment. It identifies some of the key challenges which would need to be overcome in order to achieve greater recognition of the right and suggests some areas for future development. It is argued that, while the environment and human rights are clearly interrelated, there are significant difficulties in constructing a good environment as something which is an appropriate subject for a new, standalone human right. To illustrate this, the book examines some of the formulations of the right to a good environment which are already found in regional and domestic law, and demonstrates that in many cases these are in fact restatements of the environmental dimensions of other rights or are best characterised as aspirational statements, rather than enforceable entitlements to an independent substantive right. Nonetheless, the concept of a right to an environment of some minimum quality has clearly attracted considerable support, and even as merely an aspirational statement it has potential to foster a greater understanding of the interconnectedness of the environment and human rights, and to encourage stronger and more meaningful State action to protect both.

1.4 Overview of Chapters

In order to present a comprehensive analysis of the current status of environmental human rights and their possible future direction, particularly in the context of climate change, this book includes both a descriptive overview of existing rights and a multifaceted critique of potential new developments in the field.

The book begins in Chap. 2 by mapping the relationship between the environment and human rights in existing legal structures to identify where environmental human rights are currently located and the various forms they take. This chapter explores the various human rights found in international, regional and domestic human rights law which are recognised as possessing environmental dimensions. Many rights such as the right to health, the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to self-determination or to participation in cultural life are dependent upon or can be affected by environmental conditions, and are therefore at risk from actions which cause environmental degradation. It is these rights which have most commonly been relied upon to pursue claims for violations as a result of environmental harm (a process sometimes referred to as ‘greening human rights’ (Birnie et al. 2009: 282; Boyle 2012: 614)). Understanding the various ways in which these human rights apply in an environmental context is key to assessing their potential to deal with contemporary environmental issues and to identifying areas where further development of the law may be required.

Chapter 3 focusses on formulations of environmental human rights found in domestic law, particularly national constitutions. One of the key objectives of this chapter is to assess the degree of constitutional recognition of the right to a good environment (or variations on that concept), and this contributes to the discussion of the international legal status of this concept in Chap. 4. Chapter 3 identifies that constitutional environmental rights adopt a variety of forms, ranging from aspirational statements about the relationship between humans and their environment through to binding and enforceable legal obligations. This diversity, particularly when considered in light of the identity of States which have taken the step of constitutionalising rights, indicates that no generally consistent State practice exists which would support a customary environmental norm.

In Chap. 4, the discussion of the right to a good environment is expanded to encompass coverage in regional and soft-law instruments. It demonstrates that the right to a good environment is most commonly defined not as a truly independent and substantive right, but as an articulation of the importance of the environment to the fulfilment of other rights. It explains that many of these formulations are best understood as a ‘synthesis’ (Cullet 1995: 27) or ‘compendium’ (Rodriguez-Rivera 2001: 9) of other rights, rather than a separate right to an environment of a particular quality. Chapter 4 concludes that no standalone right to a good environment currently exists within international human rights law.

After examining the range of formulations of a right to a good environment in domestic, regional and soft-law instruments, the book then proceeds to critically examine the concept from a number of perspectives. This analysis enables a consideration of the possible future development of the concept, and contributes to our understanding of environmental human rights more generally. In Chap. 5, the concept is considered from the perspective of various theories of human rights. This analysis is intended to identify the extent to which the right to a good environment could be justified as a ‘right’ according to any of the main philosophical accounts of human rights. It highlights the fundamental tension between human rights theory, which is intrinsically anthropocentric, and other theoretical approaches such as earth jurisprudence and deep ecology, which view humans as just one of many equal components of the natural world. Not only do these theoretical considerations present challenges for the greater recognition of a standalone right to a good environment, they also create difficulties for environmental human rights as a whole. So long as human rights remain linked to human interests (and there is no suggestion that these could ever be decoupled) there will always be an inherent tension within environmental human rights which may undermine the effectiveness of this body of law, and Chap. 5 concludes that it is not possible to define a right to a good environment in a way which makes it compatible with conventional human rights theory.

In Chap. 6, the analysis moves on to consider a range of other practical, legal and political considerations relevant to the right to a good environment and other formulations of environmental human rights. It identifies in particular the problem of defining applicable standards for a right to a good environment required to make it practically useful or enforceable within legal structures. It considers the ways in which these definitional problems have been dealt with in other claims for human rights violations based on environmental degradation, demonstrating that it is often difficult to prove that a duty-bearer (usually the State) has failed to discharge its obligations with respect to the environment such that a human rights violation can be established. This analysis also includes a consideration of some of the political issues surrounding environmental human rights, and particularly relating to proposals for stronger protections at the international level, where it can be seen that States have to date shown little support for the adoption of a new right to a good environment within international human rights law.

In Chaps. 7, 8 and 9 the book shifts focus to consider the specific application of environmental human rights in the context of climate change. Chapter 7 begins by providing some background on the emergence of human rights-based approaches to climate change, illustrating some of the tensions and unresolved issues relating to the appropriate role of human rights in dealing with the environmental impacts of climate change. This chapter examines the likely consequences of climate change for a number of specific human rights, in order to demonstrate the potential for human rights to assist in addressing climate change. It argues that existing human rights can be used to help improve action on climate change, for example by identifying and describing the impacts of climate change and focusing attention on vulnerable groups. Human rights also provides a way of considering competing interests and it is argued that this can provide a useful means of balancing conflicting demands on States’ resources.

Chapter 8 then proceeds to consider in more detail the limitations of a human rights-based approach to climate change. It identifies a number of difficulties in enforcing human rights law in the context of climate change. These flow from the nature of climate change as a transnational, cumulative and intergenerational problem, as well as from the norms, structures and methods of human rights law itself. They present questions about who would be the appropriate claimants and defendants in a human rights-based climate challenge, what standards of performance should apply to the relevant obligations, and how to prove causation and attribution of harm. Despite the many challenges, the chapter argues that there are benefits to be gained from a human rights-based approach to climate change, particularly where this is pursued outside the formal structures of international human rights law.

After identifying the challenges of a human rights-based approach to climate change using existing environmental human rights in Chaps. 8, 9 considers the potential of standalone environmental right in this field. It asks whether a new right to a good environment would be better able to overcome the difficulties facing traditional human rights-based approaches. Despite the appeal of a right which focuses squarely on environmental impact rather than consequential interference with other rights, this chapter argues that there are significant barriers to meaningful implementation of a standalone right to a good environment in the context of climate change. Most notably these relate to the problems of identifying appropriate rights-holders and duty-bearers, and to articulating sufficiently precise standards to enable enforcement of the right.

Ultimately the conclusion is drawn in Chap. 10 that it is not possible to define the right to a good environment in a sufficiently precise fashion to enable it to be enforceable as a human right without linking it to other human interests, in which case the right would be unnecessary as such interests are already protected by other recognised human rights. Having regard also to the attitude of States in this area, it is unlikely that we will see any recognition of the right at the international level.

However, there is much that can still be achieved through the expansion and enhancement of environmental human rights, and Chap. 10 identifies some particular areas for future development. It calls for further clarification and specification of the environmental dimensions of other rights, to enable them to be utilised more effectively in combatting environmental harms of all kinds, including climate change. One way of pursuing this, it is argued, is through expanded use of litigation, exploring novel claims and targeting both government and non-government actors. Specific work could also be done to develop means and methods of protecting particular vulnerable groups, such as future generations, whose rights are currently inadequately protected through existing legal systems. And while the right to a good environment is unlikely to attain legal recognition at the international level, its domestic and regional formulations will continue to be used, at least as tools of advocacy and rhetoric if not as enforceable legal rights. As environmental human rights are developed and refined they will continue to contribute to our understanding of the fundamental relationship between human rights and the environment and, it is hoped, help to move the global community towards a more ecocentric and connected appreciation of our place in the natural world.

References

Legislation and Treaties

Antarctic Treaty, 402 UNTS 71 opened for signature 1 December 1959, entered into force 23 June 1961

American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, OAS Res XXX, OEA/Ser.L./V.II.23, doc. 21, rev. 6 (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V./II.82, doc. 6, rev. 1, 17

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 2161 UNTS 447, opened for signature 25 June 1998, entered into force 30 October 2001 (‘Aarhus Convention’)

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 UNTS 79, opened for signature 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ)

Te Urewera Act 2014 (NZ)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1771 UNTS 107, opened for signature 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994

Cases

Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 25501/2015)

Budayeva and others v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Application Nos 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, 20 March 2008)

Human Rights Committee, Communication No 67/1980, UN Doc CCPR.C/17/D/67/1980 (27 October 1982) 20 (‘Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada’)

Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al v United States of America, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC (D. Or. 10 Nov 2016)

Lopez-Ostra v Spain (1994) 303-C Eur Court HR (ser A)

Oneryildiz v Turkey [2004] XII Eur Court HR 657

Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria, Communication No 155/96 (2002) (Ogoniland Decision)

Tatar v Romania (European Court of Human Rights, Application no 67021/01, 27 January 2009)

Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396 (24 June 2015) Hague District Court

Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (2005) IACHR (Ser C) No 125, [168]

Watt-Cloutier S (2005) Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States, 7 December 2005. http://​www.​inuitcircumpolar​.​com/​files/​uploads/​icc-files/​FINALPetitionICC​.​pdf

International Documents

Knox J (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, Report to the Human Rights Council (Advance Edited Version) 37th session, agenda item 3, UN Doc A/HRC/37/59 (24 January 2018)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2009) Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Relationship between climate change and human rights, 10th session, agenda item 2, UN Doc A/HRC/10/61 (15 January 2009)

United Nations Environment Programme, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, UN Doc A/Conf.151/26 (14 June 1992)

Articles and Books

Adelman S (2015) Epistemologies of mastery. In: Grear A, Kotze LJ (eds) Research handbook on human rights and the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 9–27Crossref

Alexander L et al (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis (contribution of Working Group 1). In: Intergovernmental panel on climate change, fifth assessment report, summary for policy makers

Anton D, Shelton D (2011) Environmental protection and human rights. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossref

Bell D (2013) Climate change and human rights. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4(3):159Crossref

Bernstein L et al (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report (contribution of Working Groups I, II and III). In: Intergovernmental panel on climate change, fourth assessment report

Birnie P et al (2009) International law and the environment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Boyle A (1996) The Role of International Human Rights Law in the Protection of the Environment. In: Boyle A, Anderson M (eds) Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection. Clarendon, Oxford, p 43

Boyle A (2012) Human rights and the environment: where next? Eur J Int Law 23(3):613

Burdon P (2010) Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. Alternative Law Journal 35(2):62

Cameron E (2010) Human rights and climate change: moving from an intrinsic to an instrumental approach. Ga J Int Comp Law 38(3):673

Caney S (2009) Human rights, responsibilities and climate change. In: Beitz C, Goodin R (eds) Global basic rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 227

Cullet P (1995) Definition of an environmental right in a human rights context. Neth Q Hum Rights 13:13

Cullinan C (2011) Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Chelsea Green, 2nd ed, Totnes

Crowd Justice (2017) Children v Governments of Europe and climate change. https://​www.​crowdjustice.​com/​case/​climate-change-echr/​

Doelle M (2004) Climate change and human rights: the role of International Human Rights in motivating states to take climate change seriously. Macquarie J Int Comp Environ Law 1:179

Downs J (1993) A healthy and ecologically balanced environment: an argument for a third generation right. Duke J Comp Int Law 3:351

Gearty C (2010) Do human rights help or hinder environmental protection? J Hum Rights Environ 1(1):7

Grear A, Kotzé L J (eds) (2015) Research Handbook on Human Rights and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Handl G (1992) Human rights and protection of the environment: a mildly ‘Revisionist’ view. In: Trindade A (ed) Human rights, sustainable development and the environment. Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, San Jose, p 117

Handl G (2001) Human rights and the protection of the environment. In: Eide A et al (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 303

Hill BE et al (2004) Human rights and the environment: a synopsis and some predictions. Georget Int Environ Law Rev 16(3):359

Humphreys S (ed) (2010) Human rights and climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Iorns Magallanes CJ (2012) The Whanganui River as a legal person: implications for property and environmental law, world indigenous lawyers conference, Hamilton, Sept 2012

Iorns Magallanes CJ (2015a) Nature as an ancestor: two examples of legal personality for nature in New Zealand. VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4000/​vertigo.​16199

Iorns Magallanes CJ (2015b) Reflecting on cosmology and environmental protection: Maori cultural rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. In: Grear A, Kotzé LJ (eds) Research handbook on human rights and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 274–308Crossref

Kiss A, Shelton D (2007) Guide to international environmental law. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenCrossref

Knox J (2009–2010) Climate change and human