Protecting Environmental Human Rights for Future Generations

doi:10.1017/9781009039642.003

2 - Protecting Environmental Human Rights for Future Generations

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2023

Bridget Lewis

Edited by

Walter F. Baber and

James R. May

Show author details

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

Book contents

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.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Environmental Human Rights in the Anthropocene
Concepts, Contexts, and Challenges
, pp. 31 - 51

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039642.003 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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. 99–124.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. 59–85.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. 42–58.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. 3–22.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. 75–97.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. 3–21.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. 1589–1609.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. 97–120.Google Scholar

Law, D. and Versteeg, M. (2011). The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism. California Law Review 99, pp. 1163–1257.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. 62–84.Google Scholar

Lewis, B. (2018a). The Rights of Future Generations within the Post-Paris Climate Regime. Transnational Environmental Law 7(1), pp. 69–87.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. 40–66.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. 86–96.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. 6–24.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. 76–138.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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.