A stand-alone human right to healthy environment

Addressing the climate crisis in a way that not only protects the environment and lowers emissions, but also makes the world a more equitable, just, and fair place to live is known as climate justice. The well-known human rights campaigner Mary Robinson asserts that in order to achieve climate justice, the conversation about greenhouse gasses and ice caps must give way to a civil rights movement that puts the needs of the most disadvantaged individuals and communities at the center.

The right to life, food, water, shelter, health care, and other fundamental rights all can get adversely impacted by rising sea levels, temperatures, and changes in precipitation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966 all recognise these rights. They are also enshrined in a number of group-based UN human rights treaties, including the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The UN human rights framework does not, however, recognise a stand-alone right to safe and heathy environment. Indeed, the more just addition to the global human rights framework could be such a right. By imposing obligations to protect the environment for future generations, such a right could not only advance intra- and inter-national justice, but also intergenerational justice.

The UN human rights framework does not, however, recognise a stand-alone right to safe and heathy environment. Indeed, the more just addition to the global human rights framework could be such a right. By imposing obligations to protect the environment for future generations, such a right could not only advance intra- and inter-national justice, but also intergenerational justice.

With regard to climate justice, the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters has greater significance. The Aarhus Convention is seen by scholars as embracing a strong human rights approach since it grants rights to persons rather than to states, reinforces procedural justice, and includes non-compliance measures that closely resemble those of human rights monitoring authorities. It can therefore be viewed as a step towards granting everyone the right to a safe and healthy environment.

Climate justice is expected to be realised when developed nations cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with their shared but differentiated responsibilities, offer short- and long-term climate finance to assist the most vulnerable in adapting to the effects of climate change, pursue low-carbon development strategies, and make sure that technology transfer and capacity building support the most vulnerable in becoming more resilient to climate change. The language of a stand-alone human right to healthy environment has the potential to morally strengthen the obligation of the states to contribute to the cause of climate justice. Viewing right to healthy environment as parasitic on other human rights does not really engender similar moral impact.

The writer teaches law at the Dhaka International University.