This article has been written by Mr. P. Rohit a 3rd year student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam.
“Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.”- Stockholm Declaration
ABSTRACT:
In some domestic authorities, different natural entities are recognized as possessing legal personality or rights. Advocates consider the concept of nature as carrying rights as a fresh and more effective way to combat environmental challenges. The expanding awareness of rights of nature approaches in transnational law has not, however, resulted in considerable engagement by orthodox international law with these approaches, despite requests for recognition of these rights in international law. Although the use of rights of nature approaches can lead to more ecologically friendly international law, it is important to emphasize the interaction between humans and nature rather than replicating detrimental, homogenizing aspects of international law.
Without the enforcement of legal rights and obligations and the establishment of an environmental rule of law, environmental governance can be capricious, subjective, and unpredictable. It is often the case that opportunities and information essential for participation in environmental governance are not provided to indigenous peoples, local communities, or civil society at large. Therefore, it is imperative to support rights-based strategies that integrate both procedural rights to access justice and information and substantive rights to a healthy environment. These serve as the cornerstones of the SDGs and are also essential elements of a strong environmental rule of law that fosters the growth of peaceful, inclusive societies for sustainable development, equitable access to justice, and the creation of transparent, accountable, and inclusive institutions.
INTRODUCTION
An environmental right is any claim made by a human being to a certain set of environmental conditions. Human rights and the environment are closely intertwined; without a clean, safe, and healthy environment, it is impossible to enjoy one’s rights, and without human rights established and upheld, it is impossible to have sustainable environmental governance. This relationship is becoming more commonly recognized because the right to a healthy environment is guaranteed by several constitutions. There are numerous acknowledged human rights that address environmental issues. Environmental rights are composed of both procedural and substantive rights.
Substantive rights are those in which the environment directly affects the right’s existence or enjoyment. The following are examples of substantive rights: civil and political rights, like the freedom to live, to assemble and not be discriminated against; economic and social rights, like the right to food, health care, and a decent standard of living; cultural rights, like the right to visit places of worship; and collective rights impacted by environmental degradation, like the rights of indigenous peoples.
Expanding upon the fundamental human rights that every individual needs and deserves are environmental rights. Securing a secure and sustainable environment is crucial, as it is a prerequisite for all other rights, including the right to food, clean water, adequate shelter, and education. Environmental rights are centred on the goal of guaranteeing that everyone on Earth has access to this fundamental quality of living. Apart from providing equitable opportunities and access to clean and sustainable resources, highly industrialized nations have an extra responsibility to uphold environmental rights. As a result, we must control our consumption levels more fairly and utilize natural resources in an ethical manner.
THE RIGHT TO A CLEAN, HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
The Stockholm Declaration set off the process of acknowledging the right to a healthy environment on a national and regional level. More than 110 States are bound by environmental accords, and regional human rights treaties also safeguard the right to a healthy environment. In excess of 100 states, it is protected by their constitutions and is mentioned in their environmental legislation.
Notwithstanding these public devices, States laid out a huge group of territorial regulation maintaining the right to a protected climate. “All people groups will reserve the privilege to an overall good climate positive for their turn of events,” as indicated by the African Sanction on Human and People groups’ Freedoms, for instance. Similarly, every individual’s right “to a sound climate” is defended by the Middle Easterner Sanction of Common freedoms. A singular’s on the right track to “live in a sound climate” is recognized in Latin America by the Convention of San Salvador to the American Show on Basic liberties, and the Escazú Understanding means to further “safeguard the right of each and every individual of present and people in the future to live in a solid climate.”
The right to a solid climate all by itself isn’t ensured under the European Show on Common freedoms. Through the innovative and dynamic translation of the Show by the European Court of Basic freedoms, natural difficulties are tended to by implication and restricted insurance is given by currently settled common liberties. For instance, the Court has extended the meaning of the right to life to incorporate the option to be liberated from risk in light of hazardous modern activities. In a similar vein, it was believed that the right to privacy and family life included the right to be shielded from environmental harm. The right to a healthy environment has come under fire for its anthropocentric nature, with the individual being most of the right-holder. There is little doubt that the understanding of rights that situates people at the center of the universe has a significant impact on the idea that people have a right to healthy environment. An eco-centric viewpoint, which prioritizes nature, should counterbalance this idea. By acknowledging that all “peoples” have the right to a decent environment, the African Charter moves things along in this direction. Certain legal jurisdictions have taken the recognition of rights to nature a step further. Important Māori sites in New Zealand, such the Forest and the River, were also given legal personality.
RECOGNITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS
The right to an environment free from harmful substances has important procedural implications. The majority of States have enacted legislation specifying the procedural and substantive prerequisites required for the effective implementation of the right to a healthy environment, taking the lead from national jurisdictions in this regard. It is frequently required to recognize a right to a healthy environment in order to uphold procedural rights, such as the right to information, the right to engage in environmental decision-making, and the right to access the legal system.
No matter how it is phrased, the preservation of those elements of the natural world that permit a dignified life is the right to a healthy environment. It covers the defense of basic human rights such as the right to life, food, and clean water. Nevertheless, there are substantial barriers that make it impossible to routinely exercise this privilege. The only global recognition of it comes from regional accords and soft law instruments. There is currently no legally binding international treaty that has acknowledged it. Significant international powers are still reticent to recognize this right, therefore there would be significant challenges for a convention of that kind.
The federal government should have to adopt “implementation laws” in order to acknowledge the right to a healthy environment. Nonetheless, not all states that recognize this right through regional agreements or their constitutions enact legislation pertaining to it. If it is not successfully incorporated into national laws and practices, the right to a healthy environment will not be able to realize its full potential. Governments that recognize the public’s right to a healthy environment usually enhance public participation and fortify their environmental laws and regulations. Several studies have found a favorable correlation between the inclusion of constitutional environmental rights and better environmental performance.
Eventually, the entry of the Basic liberties Gathering goal is a huge initial step that might fundamentally affect both the climate and common freedoms. This goal could act as an impetus for considerably more noteworthy global affirmation of the right to a solid climate, potentially prompting the production of a worldwide pledge, in the event that it is supported by the Overall Gathering.
THE RIGHTS OF NATURE DOCTRINE
The “Rights of Nature” states that an ecosystem has the right to personality status and, as such, the ability to protect itself against injuries, such as environmental degradation brought on by a particular project or by climate change, in a court of law. An ecosystem has the right to survive, thrive, renew its essential cycles, and organically change without interference from humans, according to the Rights of Nature law. In addition, an ecosystem that is deemed a “subject of rights” is entitled to legal counsel from a guardian, in a manner akin to how a charitable trust appoints a trustee to act in the trust’s best interests.
Assuring the utmost degree of environmental protection, which allows an ecosystem to flourish and ensures that its rights are upheld, is the aim of granting rights to nature. These rights of nature are frequently linked to rights, particularly the right to a hygienic and safe environment.
In the past ten years, courts, legislators, and other governmental organizations have used environment rights to fight for and win ecosystem preservation in numerous nations. Ecosystems have just recently been granted symbolic legal personhood, and it is still unknown if and to what extent these cases will be effective in securing sufficient, long-term protection for ecosystems. The way a case is structured and the interests of the claimants might affect the outcome.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of cases pertaining to the rights of nature could provide a standard for national and local governments to take action to conserve biodiversity by opposing extractive projects that could endanger a specific habitat. As custodians of these essential natural ecosystems, whose livelihoods and cultural and spiritual traditions depend on them, Indigenous groups face environmental justice challenges that are brought to light by the litigation.
LEGAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
The enforcement and advancement of the environmental rule of law might also be significantly aided by EHRDs’ activities. As it relates to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, the resolution emphasized the positive, significant, and legitimate role that EHRDs play in promoting and protecting human rights and assisting States in carrying out their duties under the Paris Agreement.
It further exhorted States to “adopt laws ensuring the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and in cultural life, the freedom to seek and impart information, and equal access to justice, including to an effective remedy, in the field of the environment” as well as “to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights, including actions undertaken to address environmental challenges.”
In addition, the Resolution urged all businesses to share and exchange best practices and provide accessible information about how they address their negative effects on human rights, especially in response to concerns expressed by EHRDs and other affected stakeholders. This was part of the business enterprises’ human rights due diligence.
The Human Rights Council emphasizes that murders, abuses of EHRDs, and human rights crimes against them may be illegal under international law and jeopardize global, regional, national, and local sustainable development. The compounded hazards that EHRDs—women and Indigenous EHRDs face from various, overlapping kinds of prejudice must be acknowledged and taken into consideration.
CONCLUSION
The right to a clean environment has not received as much recognition as it should since States have not been willing to ratify a legally enforceable agreement up until now. As a result, under international environmental law, the right to a healthy environment is essentially unenforceable.
A “healthy environment” is mentioned in lots of national constitutions that acknowledge the same. Other terminology, such as the rights to a clean, safe, “wholesome,” or “ecologically balanced” environment, may be employed instead.
The fundamental idea of the right to a proper environment is, however, shared by all of these national, regional, and international documents, regardless of their differing denominations. At the core of each of these statements is the fundamental relationship that exists between successful human rights preservation and environmental protection.
We have a lot to learn from the radical new legal thought patterns that systems thinking in international environmental law promotes, which reflect ecosystem integrity, dynamism, and interconnection. It believes that laws and the process of making decisions are inherently “socio-ecological.” Recognizing that humans have a responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of nature could lead to more environmentally friendly international law, but this path shouldn’t be followed in a way that replicates unfavourable, homogenizing aspects of international law, but rather emphasizes how humans interact with nature.
References:
This article was originally written by Yann Aguila published on IUCN website. The link for the same is herein.
https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/202110/right-a-healthy-environment.
This article was originally written by unep published on UNEP website. The link for the same is herein.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35408/SDG16.pdf.
This article was originally written by Jermie Gilbert published on Springer Link website. The link for the same is herein. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-587-4_3#Sec12.
This article was originally written by Elizabeth published on UNEP website. The link for the same is herein.
This article was originally written by John Knox published on UNHR website. The link for the same is herein.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/FrameworkPrinciplesUserFriendlyVersion.pdf
This article was originally written by David Hunter published on American Bar Association website. The link for the same is herein.
This article was originally written by Tiffany Challe published Columbia.edu website. The link for the same is herein. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-of-nature-lawsuits/
This article was originally written by Marie Claire published on lcil website. The link for the same is herein. https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/blog/exploring-role-international-law-sustainable-natural-resources-management-development-prof
This article was originally written by Maria Adebowale published on iied website. The link for the same is herein. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/11016IIED.pdf?