Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T03:31:52.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CLIMATE CHANGE, THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2018

Alan Boyle
Alan Boyle*
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Public International Law, University of Edinburgh; barrister, Essex Court Chambers, London, alan.boyle@ed.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change is relevant to human rights law, not for what it says about human rights— which is next to nothing—but for what it says about the need to address the risk of climate change taking global temperatures above 1.5 or 2 °C. The Agreement could work, or it could fail by a large margin, but those who want to influence the outcome can still do so. That includes the human rights community. Since climate change is plainly a threat to human rights, how should the UN human rights institutions respond? Should they use their existing powers of oversight to focus attention on how States parties implement (or fail to implement) commitments made in the Paris Agreement? Or should they recognize a right to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment? Either choice would represent a significant contribution to the debate on human rights and climate change, giving humanity as a whole a voice that at present is scarcely heard.

Keywords

civil and political rightsclimate changeeconomic and social rightsenvironmenthuman rightssustainable development
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 759 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this article was given at a conference on human rights and sustainable development in Bonn in May 2017. I am grateful to Dr Annalisa Savaresi and Mr Navraj Ghaleigh for their assistance on several points.

References

1 See generally, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013)Google Scholar. [‘IPCC 2013’]

2 IPCC 2013, paras 2.2, 3.3, 5.2, 6.2–3.

3 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Bangkok 2007)Google Scholar; UN Environment Programme, The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A Preliminary Assessment (Nairobi 2010)Google Scholar.

4 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge 2014)Google Scholar; CBD Technical Series No 89, The Lima Declaration on Biodiversity and Climate Change: Contributions from Science to Policy for Sustainable Development (Montreal 2017)Google Scholar; CBD Technical Series No 46, Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biodiversity (Montreal 2009)Google Scholar; FAO, Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Rome 2008)Google Scholar.

5 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge 2014)Google Scholar.

6 See generally Redclift, M, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions (Routledge 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jacobs, M, The Green Economy (Pluto Press 1991)Google Scholar; Neumayer, E, Weak Versus Strong Sustainability (4th edn, Edward Elgar 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helm, D, Natural Capital: Valuing the Planet (Yale University Press 2015)Google Scholar.

7 See eg Voigt, C, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law: Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2009)Google Scholar.

8 Barral, V, ‘Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm’ (2012) 23 EJIL 377, 388CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Case (Argentina v Uruguay) (2010) ICJ Rep 14, at 177. But see Lowe, V in Boyle, A and Freestone, D (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press 1999) ch 2Google Scholar.

10 See below.

11 See UN, Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development I, UN Doc A/CONF.151/rev.1 (1992).

12 UN, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/CONF.199/20 (2002) Res 1, para 5.

13 UNGA Res 70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015).

14 SDG 13.

15 See next section.

16 SDG 14.

17 SDG 15.

18 UNGA Res 70/1 (2015) paras 72–91.

19 Helm (n 6) 63.

20 ibid 54–62.

21 ibid 8, 40.

22 ibid 8, 40.

23 ibid 8.

24 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) art 2.

25 UNEP, Global Green New Deal (Nairobi, 2009)Google Scholar; and UNEP, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication (Nairobi 2011)Google Scholar; OECD, Towards Green Growth (Paris 2011)Google Scholar; and World Bank, Inclusive Green Growth (Washington 2012)Google Scholar.

26 Morgera, E and Savaresi, A, ‘A Conceptual and Legal Perspective on the Green Economy’ (2012) 22 RECIEL 14, 22–4Google Scholar.

27 Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of the First PREPCOM for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (17–19 May 2010) at 5.

28 UNCSD, ‘The Future We Want’, UN Doc A/CONF.216/L.1 (2012). For analysis, see Morgera and Savaresi (n 26) 14.

29 ‘The Future We Want’ (n 28) para 56.

30 ibid, para 62.

31 This is its full title. The Paris Agreement is in form, albeit not by name, a protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, with which it shares the same institutional features. It was adopted by decision of the parties to the UNFCCC and only parties to the UNFCCC may become parties to the Paris Agreement. It entered into force on 21 November 2016. See generally Bodansky, D, ‘The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?’ (2016) 110 AJIL 306Google Scholar.

32 The commitments of developed State parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 without having achieved any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against the 1990 baseline.

33 Art 2.

34 Arts 3 and 4. See also art 5 on conservation of carbon sinks (ie forests).

35 Arts 2 and 7.

36 Arts 6, 7 and 9.

37 Preamble, 3rd recital. See generally Rajamani, L, Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2006) especially ch 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rajamani, L, ‘Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative Possibilities and Underlying Politics’ (2016) 65 ICLQ 493CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Art 4.

39 Arts 3 and 4(3).

40 Art 4(4).

41 At the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992, the combined emissions of China and India, respectively the second (2694 Mt CO2) and sixth (783 Mt CO2) largest emitters in the world, were less than those of the United States (4918 Mt CO2). See TA Boden, G Marland and RJ Andres, ‘Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory’, accessed via the Tyndall Centre's ‘Global Carbon Atlas’ at <http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/>.

42 At the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the combined emissions of China and India, then the second (3467 Mt CO2) and fifth (1043 Mt CO2) largest emitters in the world, were still less than those of the United States (5415 Mt CO2). ibid.

43 The 2012 emissions of China were 9621 Mt CO2 and India 2240 Mt CO2. ibid.

44 5118 Mt CO2 in 2012. ibid.

45 UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A Preliminary Assessment (Nairobi 2010).

46 See Boyle, A and Anderson, M (eds), Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (Clarendon Press 1996)Google Scholar; Merrills, J in Bodansky, D, Brunnée, J and Hey, E (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2007) ch 28Google Scholar; Anton, D and Shelton, D, Environmental Protection and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boer, B (ed), Environmental Law Dimensions of Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 See UNHRC, Preliminary Report of Independent Expert on Human Rights Obligations Relating to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, A/HRC/22/43 (2012) [‘UNHRC Preliminary Rep (2012)’]; Knox, J and Pejan, R (eds), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment (Cambridge University Press 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 ECOSOC, Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, in Human Rights and the Environment, Final Report (1994) UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1994/9. See Popovic, N, ‘In Pursuit of Human Rights: Commentary on the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment’ (1996) 27 ColumHumRtsLRev 487Google Scholar.

49 OHCHR, Report on Climate Change and Human Rights, UN Doc A/HRC/10/61 (2009) para 18 [‘OHCHR (2009) Rep’]. On the difficult political background see M Limon, in Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 11.

50 OHCHR, Analytical Study on the Relationship between Human Rights and the Environment, UN Doc A/HRC/19/34 (2011) paras 2, 6–9.

51 ibid, para 12.

52 UNHRC Preliminary Rep (2012) A/HRC/22/43 (2012); Mapping Report, UN Doc A/HRC/25/53 (2013); Compilation of Good Practices, UN Doc A/HRC/28/61 (2015); Note by Secretariat, UN Doc A/HRC/31/53 (2015). See generally Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 1.

53 UNHRC Preliminary Rep (2012) para 14.

54 UNHRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc A/HRC/37/59 (2018).

55 See UNHRC Mapping Report (2013).

56 UNHRC Resolution 31/8 (2016).

57 The current practice of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights with respect to climate change is reviewed in CIEL, States’ Human Rights Obligations in the Context of Climate Change (Washington 2018)Google Scholar.

58 See OHCHR, ‘Human Rights and Climate Change: Overview’ at <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/HRClimateChangeIndex.aspx>.

59 Summarizing the OHCHR website entry ibid.

60 See ‘Understanding Human Rights and Climate Change’, OHCHR's submission to the 21st Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (27 November 2015) and the ‘Key Messages’ reproduced on its website.

61 ‘Key Messages’ ibid.

62 See Eckersley, R, Environmentalism and Political Theory (UCL Press 1992)Google Scholar; Gillespie, A, International Environmental Law, Policy and Ethics (Clarendon Press 1997) ch 1Google Scholar.

63 Preamble, para 13, refers to ‘the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection on biodiversity’.

64 Matos e Silva Lda v Portugal [1996] IV ECHR; Jacobsson v Sweden No 2 [1998] I ECHR; Katte Klitsche and de la Grange v Italy [1994] ECHR Sers A/293B; Pine Valley Developments Ltd v Ireland [1991] ECHR Sers A/222, paras 57–59; Katsoulis and Ors v Greece [2004] ECHR 321; Fredin v Sweden [1991] ECHR Sers A/192, paras 41–51. See also Apirana Mahuika and Ors v New Zealand (2000) CCPR Comm No 547/1992, in which the UN Human Rights Committee upheld the State's right to conserve and manage natural resources in the interests of future generations provided this did not amount to a denial of the applicant's rights.

65 See Limon in Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 11.

66 See Klein, D et al. (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change (Oxford University 2017) 108, 114–17Google Scholar; Rajamani, L, ‘The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives in the International Negotiations on Climate Change’ (2010) 22 JEL 391CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duyck, S, ‘The Paris Climate Agreement and the Protection of Human Rights in a Changing Climate’ (2015) 26 YrbkIntlEnvL 3Google Scholar.

67 Rajamani in Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 13.

68 See Rajamani, ibid. Contrast 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, art 14(2), which provides in part: ‘Each Party shall take appropriate measures to prevent illicit cultivation … The measures adopted shall respect fundamental human rights … .’

69 Gardiner, R, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2008) 186Google Scholar.

70 On the difference between ‘should’ and ‘shall’ see Nordquist, M (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Brill 1993) II, xlv–xlviGoogle Scholar.

71 Contrast UNHRC Res 31/8 (2016), which calls on States to ‘respect, protect, and fulfil human rights obligations’; and see Rajamani in Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 13; Klein et al. (n 66) 115.

72 See Klein et al. (n 66) 115.

73 A point confirmed by Klein et al. (n 66) 116.

74 UNFCCC, Preamble, 1st recital (1992).

75 UNHRC Res 10/4 (2009); OHCHR, Report of the Independent Expert/Special Rapporteur etc, UN Doc A/HRC/31/52 (2016). See generally Humphreys, S (ed), Human Rights and Climate Change (Oxford University Press 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knox, J, ‘Linking Human Rights and Climate Change at the UN’ (2009) 33 HarvEnvtlLRev 477Google Scholar; Boyle, A, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23 EJIL 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Atapattu, S, Human Rights Approaches to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities (Routledge 2015)Google Scholar.

76 OHCHR (2009) Rep (n 49) para 70.

77 See UNHR Ctte, General Comm No 6 on Article 6 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16th Sess (1982).

78 See eg Lopez Ostra v Spain [1994] 20 EHRR 277; Guerra v Italy [1998] 26 EHRR 357; Fadeyeva v Russia [2005] ECHR 376; Öneryildiz v Turkey [2004] ECHR 657; Taskin v Turkey [2006] 42 EHRR 50, paras 113–119.

79 See (n 57).

80 See OHCHR (2009) Rep (n 49) paras 86 and 99; and Limon in Knox and Pejan (n 47) ch 11.

81 ICCPR, art 2 (1966) but see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion (2004) ICJ Rep 136, para 109, and contrast the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which has no such limitation. The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, art 1 and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, art 1 make no reference to territory, but require parties to ensure to everyone ‘subject to’ or ‘within’ their jurisdiction the rights set out therein. See generally De Schutter, O, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary (Cambridge University Press 2010) 142–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion (2004) ICJ Rep 136, paras 109, 112; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures Order (2008) ICJ Rep 386, para 109; Ecuador v Colombia (Admissibility) [2010] IACHR Rep No 112/10, paras 89–100; Alejandre, Costa, de la Pena y Morales v Republica de Cuba [1999] IACHR Rep No 86/99, para 23; Coard v United States [1999] IACHR Rep 109/99, para 37; Al-Skeini v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR, paras 130–142; Öcalan v Turkey [2005] 41 EHRR 985, para 91; Ilascu v Moldova and Russia [2005] 40 EHRR 46, paras 310–319, 376–394; Issa et al v Turkey [2004] 41 EHRR 567, para 71; Cyprus v Turkey [2002] 35 EHRR 30, para 78. See also General Comm No 31 adopted by the UNHR Ctte, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev 7, 192 at 194ff, para 10.

83 See the arguments in Boyle (n 75).

84 Advisory Opinion on Environment and Human Rights (2017) IACtHR paras 103 and 104(h); translation from Official Summary, para II(h). At the time of writing full text was available only in Spanish.

85 ibid para 103.

86 Convention on Access to Information, Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998). See UNECE, The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (2nd edn, New York, 2014)Google Scholar; J Ebbesson in Bodansky et al. (n 46) ch 29.

87 See Memorial and Reply of Ecuador (2013) ICJ Rep.

88 Taskin v Turkey (n 78) para 119; Hatton v UK [2003] ECHR 28, paras 98, 122–129 (Grand Chamber).

89 Pulp Mills Case (n 9) paras 101, 187.

90 eg the right of equal access to justice, on which see 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making and Access to Justice, art 3(9).

91 Greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol apply only to Annex I developed State parties, not to developing States, including China, India and Brazil.

92 On the question how far the specific provisions of the Paris Agreement create legally binding obligations see D Bodansky, ‘The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement’ (2016) 25 RECIEL 142. In particular he notes, ibid, at 150, that ‘The Paris Agreement does not require parties to implement their NDCs; instead it simply requires parties to pursue domestic mitigation measures, an obligation they already have under the UNFCCC.’

93 UN Doc A/HRC/31/52 (2016) para 36.

94 ibid para 45.

95 ibid para 46.

96 See (n 78).

97 UN Doc A/HRC/31/52 (2016) paras 72–84. See also Knox, J in Carlarne, C, Gray, K, and Tarasofsky, R (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016) 213Google Scholar.

98 See (n 58).

99 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations’ on: Australia (2017); Russian Federation (2017); Canada (2016). See also CEDAW, ‘Concluding Observations’ on Norway (2017).

100 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations’ on Australia (2017).

101 UNGA Res 60/251 (2006).

102 Chuffart, S and Viñuales, J in Riedel, E, Giacca, G and Golay, C (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law (Oxford 2014) 287–95Google Scholar. The same point is also applicable to the Aarhus Convention's translation into European human rights law: see in particular Taskin v Turkey [2004] ECHR.

103 UNCESCR, General Comment No 3: The Nature of States’ Parties Obligations (1990), interpreting art 2 of the Covenant. See Craven, M, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Clarendon Press 1995) ch 3Google Scholar.

104 See (n 54).

105 The UNCESCR has adopted various General Comments relevant to the environment and sustainable development, notably General Comments 12, 14 and 15, which interpret arts 11 and 12 of the ICESCR to include access to a sustainable food supply and sufficient, safe, and affordable water for domestic uses and sanitation. See UNCESCR, General Comment No.12: The Right to Adequate Food, UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5 (1999); General Comment No.14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4 (2000); General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water, UN Doc E/C.12/2002/11 (2003).

106 Though there is a right to health and environmental hygiene (art 12). Compare UNHRC Resolution 31/8 (2016) para 5(a), which encourages States ‘To adopt an effective normative framework for the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.’

107 Pursuant to art 1 of both 1966 Covenants. See Merrills in Bodansky et al. (n 46) 663, 666.

108 UN, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/CONF 199/20 (2002), Res 1, para 5; UNCSD, The Future We Want, UN Doc A/CONF 216/L 1 (2012) and UNGA Res 66/288 (2012) Annex.

109 See Preamble and art 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

110 See generally Knox and Pejan (n 47).

111 See Limon and Rajamani in Knox and Pejan (n 47) chs 11 and 13.

112 Pulp Mills Case (n 9) para 177; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case (1997) ICJ Rep 7, para 140; Iron Rhine Case (2005) PCA; Higgins, R in Boyle, A and Freestone, D (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press 1999) 87Google Scholar.

113 Boyle (n 75) 613.