Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T02:03:27.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Protecting Environmental Human Rights for Future Generations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2023

Walter F. Baber
Affiliation:
California State University, Long Beach
James R. May
Affiliation:
Widener University, Delaware Law School
Get access

Summary

Despite the growing recognition of environmental rights as a key means of protecting human rights from environmental harm, the rights of future generations to be protected from environmental harm have so far been neglected. Environmental problems like climate change, landfill, toxic waste, air and water pollution, depletion of aquifers, and deforestation all have effects that will persist for decades. Environmental destruction from natural and manmade disasters can occur rapidly and cause irreparable harm to natural and cultural heritage. Concepts of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, notwithstanding their long standing as pillars of international environmental law, have failed to prevent large-scale, long-term environmental damage and associated impacts on human rights. To protect the interests of future generations effectively, environmental human rights frameworks need justiciable rights that protect against long-term environmental harm accompanied by principles and processes to enable legal enforcement of those rights.

Type
Chapter
Information
Environmental Human Rights in the Anthropocene
Concepts, Contexts, and Challenges
, pp. 31 - 51
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Act CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Hungary).Google Scholar
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “Protocol of San Salvador”, San Salvador, 17 November 1988, in force 16 November 1999, 18th sess., UN Doc OEA/Ser.A/44.Google Scholar
Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, State Obligations in Relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity: Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in Relation to Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Advisory Opinion) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 15 November 2017).Google Scholar
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, in force 21 October 1986, 1520 UNTS 217.Google Scholar
App. No. 16798/90, Lopez Ostra v. Spain (Eur Court HR, 9 December 1994).Google Scholar
App. No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland (Eur Court HR, 26 August 1996).Google Scholar
App. No. 30499/03, Dubetska v. Ukraine (Eur Court HR, 10 February 2011).Google Scholar
App. No. 30765/08, Di Sarno et al. v. Italy (Eur Court HR, 10 January 2012).Google Scholar
App. No. 41666/98, Kyrtatos v. Greece (Eur Court HR, 22 May 2003).Google Scholar
App. No. 45653/99, Andreou v. Turkey (Eur Court HR, 3 June 2008).Google Scholar
App. No. 52207/99, Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (Eur Court HR, 12 December 2001).Google Scholar
App. No. 55721/07, Al Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom (Eur Court HR, 7 July 2011).Google Scholar
App. No. 55723/00, Fadeyeva v. Russia (Eur Court HR, 2005).Google Scholar
App. No. 6080/06, Ahumnay and Others v. Turkey (Eur Court HR, 21 February 2019).Google Scholar
App. No. 67021/01, Tatar v. Romania (Eur Court HR, 27 January 2009).Google Scholar
App. No. SSD 6367, “Statement of Reasons for Decision” (New South Wales Independent Planning Commission, 18 September 2019).Google Scholar
App. Nos. 15349/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, Tatar v. Romania; Budayeva and Others v. Russia (Eur Court HR, 20 March 2008).Google Scholar
Beydon v. France (Decision) (Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1400/2005, 85th sess., UN Doc A/61/40 Vol. 2, p. 642, 31 October 2005).Google Scholar
Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, sch B pt I (“Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”).Google Scholar
Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ser. C No. 400, 6 February 2020).Google Scholar
Community of La Oroya v. Peru (Admissibility) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 76/09, 5 August 2009).Google Scholar
Constitution of Colombia 1991.Google Scholar
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008.Google Scholar
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Denmark, 25 June 1998, in force 30 October 2001, 2161 UNTS 447.Google Scholar
Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Colombia (Decision) (Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, No. 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01, 5 April 2018).Google Scholar
E.W. et al. v. The Netherlands (Decision) (Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 429/1990, 47th sess., UN Doc CCPR/C/47/d/429/1990, 8 April 1993).Google Scholar
Environment Act 1986 (New Zealand).Google Scholar
ENvironment JEUnesse v. Attorney General of Canada (Judgment) (Superior Court of Québec, No. 500-06-000955-183, 11 July 2019).Google Scholar
ENvironment JEUnesse v. Attorney-General of Canada (Motion for Authorization to Institute Class Action and Obtain the Status of Representative) (Superior Court of Québec, No. 500-06, 26 November 2018).Google Scholar
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).Google Scholar
First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, in force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171.Google Scholar
Gloucester Resources Ltd v. Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7.Google Scholar
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, adopted 29 March 2004, 80th sess., UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.Google Scholar
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: Article 6 (the Right to Life), adopted 30 October 2018, 124th sess., UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36.Google Scholar
Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand (Views Adopted by the Committee under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol) (Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 2728/2016, UN Doc CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, 24 October 2019).Google Scholar
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136; (2004) 43 ILM 1009.Google Scholar
Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 10 December 2008, in force 5 May 2013, UN Doc A/63/435.Google Scholar
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, New York, 19 December 2011, in force 14 April 2014, UN Doc A/RES/66/138.Google Scholar
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW).Google Scholar
Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR 1975, c C-12.Google Scholar
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 14 June 1992, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26.Google Scholar
Sacchi et al., Communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child Submitted under Article 5 of the Third Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al., 23 September 2019.Google Scholar
Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication No 155/96 (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 May 2002, ACHPR/COMM/A044/1).Google Scholar
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd (No 2) [2021] QLC 4.Google Scholar
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd [2020] QLC 33.Google Scholar
Well-being of Future Generations Act 2017 (Wales).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Andersen, E. (2006). Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (2011). Does Anthropogenic Climate Change Violate Human Rights? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14(2), pp. 99124.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. (2011). The Implicit Constitutional Right to Live in a Healthy Environment. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 20(2), pp. 171–9.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. (2014). Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, A. (2012). Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next? European Journal of International Law 23(3), pp. 613–42.Google Scholar
Campbell-Duruflé, C. and Atapattu, S. (2018). The Inter-American Court’s Environment and Human Rights Advisory Opinion: Implications for International Climate Law. Climate Law 8(3–4), pp. 321–37.Google Scholar
Caney, S. (2006). Cosmopolitan Justice, Rights and Global Climate Change. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 19(2), pp. 255–78.Google Scholar
Caney, S. (2008). Human Rights, Climate Change and Discounting. Environmental Politics 17(4), pp. 536–55.Google Scholar
Chenwi, L. (2018). The Right to a Satisfactory, Healthy and Sustainable Environment in the African Human Rights System. In Knox, J. and Pejan, R., eds., The Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5985.Google Scholar
Daly, E. and May, J.R., eds. (2018). Implementing Environmental Constitutionalism: Current Global Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, E. and May, J.R. (2018). Learning from Constitutional Rights. In Knox, J. and Pejan, R., eds., The Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4258.Google Scholar
Daly, E. et al., eds. (2017). New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
De Fazio, G. (2012). Legal Opportunity Structure and Social Movement Strategy in Northern Ireland and Southern United States. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 53(1), pp. 322.Google Scholar
de Moerloose, S. (2020). The Lhaka Honhat Case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Long-Awaited Granting of 400,000 Hectares under Communal Property Rights. European Journal of International Law: Talk! (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
Environmental Defenders Office (2020). Young Australians Take on Clive Palmer Coal Mine over Human Rights. Available at: www.edo.org.au/young-australians-take-on-clive-palmer-coal-mine-over-human-rights-gs/ (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1971). The Rights of Animals and Future Generations. University of Georgia: Fourth Annual Conference in Philosophy. Athens, GA, February.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1981). The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations. In Partridge, E., ed., Responsibilities to Future Generations: Environmental Ethics. New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 139–50.Google Scholar
Gellers, J. (2015). Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights: A Global Quantitative Analysis. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 6(1), pp. 7597.Google Scholar
González-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (2016). Designing Institutions for Future Generations. In González-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321.Google Scholar
Gosseries, A. (2008). On Future Generations’ Future Rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 16(4), pp. 446–74.Google Scholar
Grant, E. (2015). International Human Rights Courts and Environmental Human Rights: Re-Imagining Adjudicative Paradigms. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 6(2), pp. 156–76.Google Scholar
Hannam, P. (2019). “We Won”: Landmark Climate Ruling as NSW Court Rejects Coal Mine. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February. Available at: www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/we-won-landmark-climate-ruling-as-nsw-court-rejects-coal-mine-20190207-p50wer.html (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
Hilson, C. (2002). New Social Movements: The Role of Legal Opportunity. Journal of European Public Policy 9(2), pp. 238–55.Google Scholar
Hilson, C. (2018). The Visibility of Environmental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Eurolegalism in Action? Journal of European Public Policy 25(11), pp. 15891609.Google Scholar
Imhof, S., Gutmann, J., and Voigt, S. (2016). The Economics of Green Constitutions. Asian Journal of Law and Economics: Berlin 7(3), pp. 305–22.Google Scholar
Kobylarz, N. (2018). The European Court of Human Rights: An Underrated Forum for Environmental Litigation. In Anker, H. and Olsen, B., eds., Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: Legal Instruments and Approaches. Cambridge: Intersentia Ltd, pp. 97120.Google Scholar
Law, D. and Versteeg, M. (2011). The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism. California Law Review 99, pp. 11631257.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. (2014). Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lewis, B. (2021). Human Rights as a Basis for Institutions for Future Generations. In Lawrence, P. and Linehan, J., eds., Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 6284.Google Scholar
Lewis, B. (2018a). The Rights of Future Generations within the Post-Paris Climate Regime. Transnational Environmental Law 7(1), pp. 6987.Google Scholar
Lewis, B. (2018b). Environmental Human Rights and Climate Change: Current Status and Future Prospects. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Macklin, R. (1981). Can Future Generations Correctly Be Said to Have Rights? In Partridge, E., ed., Responsibilities to Future Generations: Environmental Ethics. New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 151–7.Google Scholar
May, J.R. and Daly, E. (2014). Global Environmental Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, J.R. and Daly, E. (2019). Six Trends in Global Environmental Constitutionalism. In Sohnle, J. and Pierré-Caps, S., eds., Environmental Constitutionalism: Impact on Legal Systems? Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing, p. 520.Google Scholar
May, J.R. and Daly, E. (2017). Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism, 3rd ed. United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
May, J.R. (2017). Sustainability and Global Environmental Constitutionalism. In Daly, E., Kotzé, L. and May, J.R., eds., New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, pp. 308–18.Google Scholar
May, J.R. (2018). Sustainability Constitutionalism. University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review 86(4), pp. 855–68.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2019). Landmark Ruling Rejects Coal Mine Because of Intergenerational Inequity. Newcastle Herald, 18 September. Available at: www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6386783/korean-government-backed-bylong-coal-mine-refused-despite-750-million-outlay/ (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
McGowan, M. and Cox, L. (2019). Court Rules out Hunter Valley Coalmine on Climate Change Grounds. The Guardian, 7 February. Available at: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/08/court-rules-out-hunter-valley-coalmine-climate-change-rocky-hill (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
New South Wales Government (2019). The Bylong Coal Project has been Refused Development Consent for “Environmental Impacts”. Mudgee Guardian, 18 September. Available at: www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/story/6392696/the-bylong-coal-project-has-been-refused-development-consent-for-environmental-impacts/ (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2020a). Public Concerns. Available at: www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/public-concerns (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2020b). What We Do. Available at: www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/what-we-do (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
O’Gorman, R. (2017). Environmental Constitutionalism: A Comparative Study. Transnational Environmental Law 6(3), pp. 435–62.Google Scholar
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2019). Five UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies Issue a Joint Statement on Human Rights and Climate Change, 16 September. Available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24998 (Accessed 20 August 2020).Google Scholar
Papantoniou, A. (2018). Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights. American Society of International Law 112(3), pp. 460–6.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1986). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partridge, E. (1990). On the Rights of Future Generations. In Scherer, D., ed., Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 4066.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (2019). European Court of Human Rights and Environmental Rights. In May, J.R. and Daly, E., eds., Human Rights and the Environment: Legality, Indivisibility, Dignity and Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 463–71.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (2018). The European Court of Human Rights and International Environmental Law. In Knox, J. and Pejan, R., eds., The Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8696.Google Scholar
Preston, B. (2020). Implementing a Climate Conscious Approach in Daily Legal Practice. University College London Event, London, 11 February.Google Scholar
Preston, B. (2018a). Mapping Climate Change Litigation. Australian Law Journal 92, pp. 774–88.Google Scholar
Preston, B. (2018b). The Evolving Role of Environmental Rights in Climate Change Litigation. Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 2(2), pp. 131–64.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. (2002). Environmental Issues and Human Rights: Multilateral Treaties Adopted between 1991 and 2001. Geneva: Joint UENP–OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment.Google Scholar
Shue, H. (2019). The Pivotal Generation: Why Us Now? SSRN. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361805.Google Scholar
Szabó, M. (2015). National Institutions for the Protection of the Interests of Future Generations. E-Publica: Revista Electronica de Direito Publico 2(2), pp. 624.Google Scholar
Tigre, M. (2020a). Inter-American Court of Human Rights Recognizes the Right to a Healthy Environment. American Society of International Law: Insights 24(14). Available at: www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/14/inter-american-court-human-rights-recognizes-right-healthy-environment (Accessed 7 August 2020).Google Scholar
Tigre, M. (2020b). Lhaka Honhat Association vs. Argentina: The Human Right to Environment in the Inter-American Court. Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment. Available at: gnhre.org/community/lhaka-honhat-association-vs-argentina-the-human-right-to-environment-in-the-inter-american-court/ (Accessed 7 August 2020).Google Scholar
Tremmel, J. (2009). A Theory of Intergenerational Justice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L. (2012). Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK. Law & Society Review 46(3), pp. 523–56.Google Scholar
Viljoen, F. (2008). Communications under the African Charter: Procedure and Admissibility. In Evans, M. and Murray, R., eds., The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The System in Practice 1986–2006, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76138.Google Scholar
Weiss, E.B. (1989). In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity. New York: Transnational Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. and Rodríguez-Cordero, J.C. (2016). Legal Opportunity Structures and Social Movements: The Effects of Institutional Change on Costa Rican Politics. Comparative Political Studies 39(3), pp. 325–51.Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×