Human Rights Committee Affirms a Duty to Protect Against Environmental Harm

We are not yet at human rights, but there is an interesting blog post this week that discusses a recent case before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). You will recall that the HRC is the institutional body that implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The case came from Paraguay, alleging that the government failed to protect the applicants from pesticides and other environmental harms from neighboring industrial farms.

The case, analyzed in the blog post, involves interesting interpretation of not only the ICCPR, but the application of jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, in establishing a clear and direct relationship between human rights and the environment, and affirming a positive obligation on states to protect their residents from environmental harm.

After reading the blog post (unfortunately, the HRC decision itself is not yet available in English), take a look at the specific provisions of the ICCPR, and consider whether you think that the HRC's apparent interpretation is supportable. Remember to apply the principles we have been discussing - particularly Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT - in considering this question.

We will discuss this relationship between human rights and the environment in our examination of both human rights and climate change. You may all be aware of a fascinating case here in the United States, Juliana v. The United States, in which a Federal District Court in Oregon held that there is a fundamental right in the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to "an environment that can sustain human life," and allowed an action to proceed against the federal government for a violation of this right through its action and inaction contributing to climate change. The decision is on appeal at the 9th Circuit.