Smart E.

Pants
International Environmental Law
Spring 2014

Finding the Links Between Human Rights and Environmental Policy

A balance between human rights, environmental protection, and economic stability is
essential within the scope of international law. I believe that environmental degradation must be
regulated through international human rights law when possible as opposed to being dealt with
solely outside of the human rights spectrum, as the quality of the environment directly affects the
well being of humans. As environmental harm becomes an even more pressing problem as time
passes, environmental law would greatly benefit from the absolute nature of human rights law. I
agree specifically with Carmen Gonzalezs policy recommendation in The Global Food Crisis:
Law, Policy, and the Elusive Quest for Justice, as she states that international law must be
premised on the hierarchical superiority of human rights norms and must regard trade and
investment as a means toward the accomplishment of human rights and environmental objectives
rather than as ends in themselves (25). Despite the idea that a human-centered take on
environmental issues might undermine the idea of preserving nature for its own sake, human
health and environmental degradation are unalterably linked. The international nature of human
rights law is also necessary to prevent widespread, transboundary environmental harm. The ideal
of equality, present in human rights law, is an ideal way of protecting the worlds less developed
nations from bearing the brunt of environmental damages.
Environmental law and human rights law are inexorably linked in many ways. The nature
of human rights, as recognized by the United Nation in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the two Covenants, is such that they are inalienable rights, both permanent and
universal, [and] differ from rights, bestowed by positive law, that a state can give and take away
(Brown Weiss, et al. 431). The human right to the preservation of the natural environment seems
to me to fall under this category, as a right that a government should not be able to take away. On
the other hand, Gunther Handls Human Rights and Protection of the Environment: A Mildly
Revisionist View explains that the concept of inalienability would make it impossible for
environmental rights to become human rights, as environmental entitlements have been and will
continue to be susceptible to restrictions for the sake of other, socioeconomic objectives (Brown
Weiss, et al. 441). Linking environmental rights to human rights would give them extreme
priority, held higher than social or economic interests. If an environmental issue, however, was
detrimental to other human rights, then fixing the environmental issue should be more important
than other interests. In Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment by
Dinah Shelton explains, It is now widely accepted that the characterization of a specific goal as
a human right elevates it above the rank and file of competing societal goals, gives it a degree of
immunity from challenge and generally endows it with an aura or timelessness, absoluteness, and
universal validity (Brown Weiss et al. 435). When environmental issues are addressed through
human rights law, the potential exists to solve these issues with urgency, while holding them at a
higher priority than economic issues.
According to the indispensability theory, The threat to human existence and survival
produces a basis for the right to a clean environment. The right to a clean environment is
indispensable to the exercise of other human rights (Brown Weiss, et al. 442). In this,
environmental protection is linked to the enjoyment of other determined human rights. For
example, if environmental degradation creates air pollution that contains carcinogens, the
environmental harm is taking away ones right to life. In Human Rights, Environmental Rights,
and the Right to the Environment by Dinah Shelton explains, Environmental problems may be
combatted through the assertion of existing human rights, such as the rights to life, personal
security, health, and food. In this regard, a safe and healthy environment may be viewed as either
a pre-condition to the exercise of existing rights or as inextricably intertwined with the
enjoyment of these rights (Brown Weiss, et al. 439). Unsafe or unhealthy environmental
conditions in themselves often prevent one from enjoying other basic human rights, linking the
two together at the root. In situations where a degraded environment prevents the exercise of
other defined human rights, environmental issues can be dealt with specifically within the human
rights law framework.
Environmental degradation specifically inhibits the widely accepted human right to food.
The right to food is addressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the United Nations Convention of
the Rights of the Child (Gonzalez 1). Global climate change, as well as other environmental
issues, directly affects agriculture and increasing food prices on an international level. In The
Global Food Crisis: Law, Policy, and the Elusive Quest for Justice, Carmen Gonzalez explains
the impacts that environmental degradation have on many nations ability to export food and
realize income that can be used for food imports. Gonzalez points out the many environmental
issues linked to the Green Revolution and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) also
drastically impacted food production and supply in developing countries. Farmers that once used
low-input, ecologically friendly practices traded these for increased crop yields, in turn leading
to environmental consequences such as loss of soil fertility, depletion of aquifers, agrochemical
contamination of surface waters and groundwater, loss of ecosystem biodiversity, loss of
traditional food crops, increased pesticide-related illness, narrowing the genetic base of the
worlds food supply, and heightened vulnerability of the global food supply to catastrophic
blight (10). Gonzalez points out that our agricultural systems are increasingly vulnerable to
global climate change, putting many at the risk of food insecurity. The direct link between
environmental conditions and the human right to food is inescapable.
Gonzalez offers a policy recommendation directly grounded in human rights, stating,
What is required is a fundamental reorientation of policy at the national and international level
away from de-regulation toward targeted and thoughtful regulatory strategies designed to
respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food (19). In this, based on the indispensability
theory previously mentioned, environmental regulation would be necessary for the realization of
the human right to food. Interestingly, Gonzalez offers the idea that human rights, environmental
protection, and trade law should be treated holistically within international law, as opposed to
separately as they currently are. This policy recommendation calls for environmental norms, just
as human rights, to take priority over other socioeconomic interests. This idea has a wide variety
of benefits, and would give environmental issues the attention that they desperately need.
The first evidence of the specific right to a clean environment is documented in the
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, also known as the
Stockholm Declaration, stating Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and
adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well
being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present
and future generations (Brown Weiss, et al. 443). This declaration directly links the
environment to human rights, and in addition adds the idea that states have the responsibility to
not only preserve, but also improve the quality of the environment for future generations. Five
states in the United States directly recognize the right to the environment in their constitutions,
while eleven states allude to this right (Brown Weiss, et al. 449). Linking environmental issues
to existing, defined human rights is one approach, while another approach seeks to define
environmental rights specifically.
In his analysis, Adaptation, Mitigation, and Justice, Dale Jamieson depicts the
environmental issue of climate change as that of moral consequence. Although his policy
recommendations do not directly point to a human rights approach, he offers he idea, it is a
plain fact that climate change poses moral questions (240). In his account of climate change, he
points to human greed, indifference, and mendacity as the drivers of global climate change
(241). In this, Jamieson brings the idea of human rights into play. As the global upper and middle
class contribute the most emissions to the atmosphere by far, the global lower class suffers the
most from climate related disasters. Jamieson ultimately recommends policy that takes into
account both efficiency and equality, forming a fair emissions trading system, featuring an
unrestricted market that distributes permits through some plausible principle of justice (230).
Although this policy does not use international human rights law as a means of mitigating
climate change, it takes a human rights perspective by being grounded in morals rather than
states self-interest. The human rights concept of equality between peoples is evident in his ideas,
as he believes that the global poor should not bear the brunt of socioeconomic issues rooted in
climate change. As Dinah Shelton articulates, A fundamental question is whether human rights
and environmental protection are premised upon fundamentally different social values, such that
the efforts to implement both simultaneously will produce more conflict than improvement, or,
on the other hand, whether [they] are complementary, each furthering the other (Brown Weiss
et al. 438). Jamieson offers the idea that human rights and environmental policy, are, in fact,
based upon the same moral foundations.
Although the right to a clean environment is intertwined into other human rights, such as
the rights to food and life, it also can conflict with the proposed right to development. In talks
about climate change emissions, developing nations often argue the case that they deserve the
right to develop, even though environmental degradation may come as a consequence of
development. Learning From Environmental Justice: A New Model For International
Environmental Rights by Hari Osofsk explains, The people and governments receiving these
[development] benefits may argue for the existence of a right to development and characterize
environmental damage as an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of economic growth (Brown
Weiss et al. 434). From this standpoint, states must undergo an environmental and economic
cost-benefit analysis. Putting environmental issues in a human rights frame would place the
environment at a higher importance than that of economic development. If development,
however, is also considered a basic human right, issues arise. If already developed nations
produce environmentally harmful byproducts as a result of their development, theoretically,
developing nations should be able to do the same. With environmental degradation, however,
impacting basic human rights neither would have the right to continue environmentally harmful
development. Although often more expensive with regard to short term costs, sustainable,
environmentally friendly forms of development must be employed to protect basic human rights.
Another argument against the use of human rights law as a tool for implementing
international environmental policy is the idea that environmental law should not be human-
centered, and that the environment should be preserved for its own sake, not for the well being of
humans. Dinah Shelton explains, Under this approach, human rights are subsumed under the
primary objective of protecting nature as a whole (Brown Weiss et al. 438). Although the idea
of preserving the natural environment simply because it should be protected sounds empowering
in theory, it complicates advocacy for environmental norms. With human rights as a backing,
environmental policy has the potential to see much more progression internationally. The
argument against a human-centered view of environmental policy can be combatted by a
number of other theories, including the survival need theory. The survival need theory has an
ultimate goal of protecting the Earths ecosystem, but is formulated based on human need for a
clean environment. The theory identifies a clean environment as the most basic need of all
living organisms, even extending farther than the human race (Brown Weiss, et al. 442).
Connecting environmental policy and human rights through international law will prove
essential to our global health. In agreement with Carmen Gonzalezs food crisis policy
recommendation, I believe that economic policy should be geared towards creating a world that
sees environmental sustainability and human rights as its ultimate goals, rather than simply
economic gain alone. It is difficult to argue that human rights and environmental degradation are
not linked, as the health of the natural environment directly affects the well being of a states
people. An unsafe environment will likely infringe on basic human rights, such as the right to
life, food, or clean water. Assigning moral responsibility to environmental issues such as climate
change, in the views of Dale Jamieson, will ultimately provide motivation for action with regards
to environmental policy. Arguments against treating a clean environment as a human right
explain that it often contradicts the right to development, or argue that it only protects the
environment for the use of humans, instead of for the sake of the natural environment itself. With
a clean and safe environment, however, as a basic need for human life, environmental policy and
human rights must be linked through international law.























References

Brown Weiss, et al. (2007). International Environmental Law and Policy. Pp. 457-500.

Gonzalez. (2010). The Global Food Crisis: Law, Policy, and the Elusive Quest for Justice. 13
Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal.

Jamieson. (2005). Adaptation, Mitigation, and Justice. Advances in the Economics of
Environmental Resources. Volume 5.