Literature Review

To better understand the nature of this historical judgment, it is important to recall some of the most important legislative progressions that characterized international climate change law before 2013.

Some “new” rights have recently been added to the international human rights catalogue, such as the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. These new rights protect global public goods, i.e. goods that benefit the totality of all States and all individuals together. They are thus different from the “old” human rights, such as the right to life, the right to liberty and security of person, the right to liberty of movement, and so on, whose beneficiary is the individual as individual.

In the years prior to the ground-breaking Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands judgment, the phenomenon of judicial claims lamenting violations of the human right to a healthy environment was one that already had manifested itself. The use of an alternative pathway to policy-making, given the complexities that surrounded political consensus on a formal affirmation, cannot be catalogued as a surprise.

For the longest time, the right to a healthy environment has been included in the theoretical category of “emerging rights” (Marks, 1980). This “emerging” status, fitting for an age in which the dramatic urgency of climate change had not consolidated itself yet, grew to become more and more inadequate with the development of strong scientific consensus on these aspects.

Arguably, all human rights which find affirmation and recognition in international agreements trace their origin back to the customary recognition that international actors have either a “duty to protect”, a “duty to respect” or a “duty to fulfil” a certain value. This is now also applicable to the international right to a healthy environment.

A French court dismissed a landmark case against TotalEnergies for a massive oil project in Uganda and Tanzania after several NGOs filed a suit to suspend the controversial project.It was the first case of its kind in France, and activists had hoped it would set a legal precedent to halt projects deemed harmful to the environment and human rights.

The United States has long recognized the relationship between human rights and environmental protection, and advancing environmental justice.  We have a history of promoting environmental protection and believe that every person should live in a healthy environment. We also believe that a healthy environment supports the well-being and dignity of people around the world and the full enjoyment of all human rights.

Human rights are essential to the flourishing of all human beings regardless of their nationality or another status. Despite existence of the numerous documents and mechanisms created to protect human rights internationally, the full protection is far from being achieved. Linking human rights to environmental justice has been an arduous task, but contemporary environmental ethicists argue that giving a human face to the environment that nurtures and sustains us is a precondition for sustainable development. Violation of peace, pollution or exhaustion of the environmental resources jeopardizes the development not only of people, who have suffered from these violations directly but also that of future generations. The concept of sustainability addresses the issue of economic growth at present and how this impacts future generations. The three global values – peace, a healthy environment and sustainable development – are the principles of international cooperation. The understanding of the interdependence between these values and people marks the beginning of the search for a legal definition of ways to protect the physical existence and rights of individual human beings and humanity. In this article, the environmental human right to sustainable development is discussed as one of the human rights. It also discussed the lack of success of many of the Rio initiatives makes that make it appropriate to consider new approaches and that such approaches should be rooted in recognition of an inalienable right to a safe and healthy environment.

As the impact of our species on the natural world intensifies, so does the knowledge of our dependency on it: from crop-pollinating critters and wild fish populations that nourish millions, to ecosystems that inhale carbon emissions and filter air and water.

The UN Conference of Parties that occurs every year, the most recent being COP27 in Egypt last month, develops additional accords to enforce environmental rights, such as the Loss and Damage Fund intended to assist people in places most negatively affected by climate disasters.

A resolution by the UN General Assembly was passed effectively declaring access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental human right. The resolution calls on international organizations and business enterprises to increase efforts to ensure everyone has access to a clean environment.

Abstract: The concept of ecocide was developed in response to the ecological war of the Vietnam through a legal simulation by Galston. In Galston's view, just as the destruction of human groups is a crime against humanity and has been criminalized as genocide, the destruction of ecosystem(s) is a crime against humanity and must be criminalized as ecocide in a treaty. However, the international community has so far failed to implement Galston's idea and criminalize ecocide as an international crime. Using a descriptive-analytical approach and library resources, this research examines the process of developing this concept as well as its essence in Galston's legal perspective and to evaluate it. It aims to familiarize the legal community with the theory of ecocide crime, to provide a ground for ecocide criminalization at the four levels of local, national, regional, and international, as well as for the emergence of an universal criminal policy to protect the Earth against severe, widespread, or long-term ecological damages.