Judges sit as the International Court of Justice begins hearings in The Hague, Netherlands … [+]
During the first two weeks of December, the International Court of Justice held oral hearings Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations in Climate Change. At the request of the UN General Assembly, the ICJ will determine the existing financial responsibilities of countries for their contribution to climate change and what steps countries must take to prevent climate change. In response to questions from the judges at the end of the hearing, The parties are at odds “Whether or not the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment exists in international law.”
The ICJ was established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through an impartial court. ICJ Hall Composed of 15 judges Elected for a nine-year term by the UNGA and the UN Council. A country can have only one judge at the ICJ at a time.
On March 29, 2023, at Vanuatu’s request, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on countries’ legal obligations to combat climate change. The opinion, while not binding, will provide an indication of how courts may interpret future climate cases and guide future legislation.
December 2nd, The Vanuatu and Melanesian Spearhead Group has opened hearings Given, in essence, an opening argument. More than 100 countries and groups presented oral statements in 30-minute increments from December 2 to 13.
Although most of the legal arguments are circumstantial The Paris Agreement and the obligation of countries to reduce GHG emissionsA parallel question is raised whether people have a right to a clean environment.
Developing countries argue that the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement are a starting point, but the impacts of climate change violate human rights under international common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, countries that contribute to climate change, through fossil fuels and GHG emissions, must compensate developing countries that are “adversely affected” by climate change.
This argument has found success in other international courts. In April 2024, European Court of Human Rights ruled that protection against the effects of climate change is a human right. That right is found in the European Convention on Human Rights, along with the Paris Agreement.
In May, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea It found that countries have a duty to prevent climate change to “protect the marine environment”. This decision was based on tying the Paris Agreement to obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Currently, 168 states and the European Union have signed the Convention.
After the ICJ hearing, Four judges raised the question: Judge Sarah Cleveland of the United States, Judge Dire Tladi of South Africa, Judge Bogdan-Lucian Orescu of Romania and Judge Hilary Charlesworth of Australia. The parties had until December 20 to file their replies.
The question raised by Judge Oresco addressed whether there is a right to a healthy environment.
Official portrait of High Mr. Bogdan-Lucian Orescu (Romania) in 2024.
Judge Bogdan-Lucian Oresco
Romania
“Some participants argued, during the written and/or oral stages of the proceedings, that there is a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in international law. Could you please develop the legal content of this right and its relationship with other human rights that you consider relevant to this advisory opinion?”
Notable responses:
United States of America
“No globally applicable treaty provides for a right to a healthy environment, nor is this right supported by the extensive and virtually uniform state practice and jurisprudence necessary to establish a regime of customary international law. Although selected regional treaties, domestic laws, and non- -Mandatory sources reflect a growing awareness by the international community of the importance of a healthy environment for the enjoyment of human rights, these sources are not sufficient evidence of the crystallization of a new norm of international law.
Attempts to develop or define a new human right for a healthy environment must be consistent with established norms for creating international law. The United States remains open to participating in a transparent process in which states have the opportunity to provide input on the scope and content of such rights and to indicate their consent to be bound.”
UK
“In response to questions raised by the judge, the United Kingdom reiterated its position, as stated in its written comments, that there is no existing customary international law on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”
Thailand
“In Thailand’s view, it stands, the right to chase (Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment) Based on and necessarily implied by other relevant existing human rights because the meaningful enjoyment of the latter presupposes the former.
“To begin with, effectively enjoying the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health requires an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable…
“Similarly, to enjoy the right to life – ‘and especially life with dignity’ – a person must be able to live without life-threatening harm in a safe environment, as the Human Rights Committee has recognised.”
Sri Lanka
“While the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment may, at first glance, appear to derive from the treaty-based right to health, it is actually a right that later developed within customary international law. Its emergence can be traced back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which recognized a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family. As a result, the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 recognized that ‘human beings have fundamental rights to liberty, equality and adequate conditions of life, including an environment that permits a life of dignity and well-being’. Half a century later, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was recognized by the UNHRC and then, the UNGA. Thus, although it is an autonomous right in and of itself, it is also intrinsically related to the right to health, the right not to be deprived of livelihood and the ultimate right to life.
Samoa
“The legal content of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (RTHE) is tied to its status as a distinct universal human right. Although states have for some time been obliged under various human rights norms to ensure that individuals enjoy a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, a specific and distinct right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment has emerged. This individual right has developed as a norm of customary international law or as a right derived from other human rights.
Russian Federation
“We are reiterating our position during the public hearing in the court. We believe that the ‘right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ has not been crystallized in customary international law.
Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
“OCPS affirms that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (the right to a healthy environment) is firmly established as a human right, essential to the enjoyment of the rights to life, health, food, water, shelter, culture, and self-determination, among others. This right, affirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 and Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13, has deep roots, including regional agreements and Instruments2 and national constitutions worldwide. The right has now crystallized into a norm of customary international law. It also exists as a general principle of law recognized by the community of nations.”
Mexico
“In its initial written statement submitted to the Court, Mexico emphasized that the human right to a healthy environment embodies both tangible and procedural elements, reflecting its unique legal content and its interrelationship with other human rights.
“Basically, this right includes access to clean air, safe water, sustainable food production, and healthy ecosystems, which are essential to the enjoyment of life, health, and personal integrity. Systematically, it requires access to environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to effective remedies. .
Kuwait
“Insofar as the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is enshrined in the UN General Assembly 12 and recent resolutions of the Human Rights Council, such resolutions cannot impose legally binding obligations on States in relation to the climate system or otherwise. Member States that have adopted General Assembly Resolution 76/300 also It was clear that they did not intend to create legally binding obligations.”
Germany
“The right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, was conceived in this legally binding instrument as constituting a specific expression of other previously established human rights. The right was understood as arising from and inherent in already existing international human rights obligations, particularly under the ICCPR and the ICESCR It must, like other environment-related human rights, be interpreted in accordance with the obligations of states under international environmental law. An increasing number of states recognize the right to a healthy environment and It forms part of an ongoing legal debate in various human rights contexts. However, in Germany’s view, it is not part of current customary international law.”
European Union
“The European Union submits that, regardless of (and until) the formal recognition of this right as self-perpetuating in customary international law, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment already exists as an expression of the necessary systemic. Integration between international human rights and climate change. This The content of rights can and should thus be determined on this basis.
“It is largely based on the principle of procedural integration that regional human rights courts as well as the United Nations and regional organizations increasingly recognize that existing human rights also include obligations to protect the environment. Notably, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has effectively upheld the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). A human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment derives from the existing human right. In particular, the ECtHR sees the right to respect for private and family life as a right of individuals should be considered so that public authorities effectively protect their lives, health, well-being and quality of life from the serious adverse effects of climate change.”
African Union
“All life depends on a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. First recognized in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and reaffirmed in the 1992 Rio Declaration, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment has recently been recognized as a universal human right by the United Nations General Assembly (“UNGA”) and the UN Human Rights Council. Rights Council (“HRC”). Judges of this Court have also referred to the right…
“The African Union submits that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is recognized in the Convention and integrated into customary international law.”
