Human Rights vs Environmental Rights (essay) PDF

Preview

Summary

2:1 essay on the impact that HR have on Environmental Rights....

Description

LAW1216 Coursework 2) Discuss whether the use of human rights compensates for the lack of specific environmental rights in offering an effective means to protects the environment. As it stands, there are no ‘rights’ by law for the environment, however, as human beings we have many rights following the creation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Environmental rights are the extension of the basic human rights. To have a sustainable environment that helps keeps us alive, we must globally help to protect it. One would argue that we should not need laws for the environment as it is our duty to protect nature and the environment that we live in, this is linked to the idea of stewardship and also the idea that it is morally correct to respect the place we call ‘home’. One of the first cases that considered harm to the environment and was of significance to the environmental law movement was Sierra Club v. Morton1. In this case, Justice William O. Douglas had the powerful dissenting opinion that public concern for the protection of nature should lead to standing for the environment for their own preservation. This idea was again questioned by Christopher Stone in his book ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ 2. He explored the idea of rights within minority groups at the time, including rights for women, slaves and the landless poor. He also looked at the rights of inanimate objects, for example companies and ships have designated genders and names and are protected by law. The question of ‘what rights?” arises when considering what the environment should be entitled to. First of all is the argument that there should be the right to institute legal action on their own. Also, the right to have injury taken into account in assessing legal redress. And the right to benefit from legal redress. Currently, the rights in place only affect persons as it said that only we have the ability to initiate a claim. The case of Fisher v. Lowe3 left judges upholding the court’s decree when giving compensation for a damaged oak tree. Many didn’t agree with the court’s decision in this case as there is belief that a tree should not have standing. Currently, there is no universal declaration of ‘environmental rights’. Therefore, one questions whether or not we should rely on Human Rights to protect the environment. This is linked with notions of anthropocentricity and governance. Anthropocentricity being the idea that humans are the main concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. And governance being the idea that states have the right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their development polices. Both these ideas are noted as per the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)Principles 1 and 2, decided in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Summit meetings are needed for big decisions regarding the world’s welfare.

1 405 U.S. 727 (1972)

2 Southern California Law Review 45 (1972): 450-501 3 (1983) (Mich. CA)

1

Instead of laws to protect the environment there are many charities in place. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) founded in 1970 by a group of law students and attorneys. With help from volunteers and many scientists, their aim is to protect the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. By protecting some of the fundamental human rights, the environment is also being protected as it is a necessity for our survival. The United Nations (UN), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) all hold up substantive and procedural rights. Some substantive rights include Article 2 (the right to life), Article 8 (the right to privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (right to property). A procedural right would be Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). Article 2 was engaged after a breach of human rights as mentioned in the discussion in the case of Guerra v Italy4 which was heard in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Many of the rights in place only effect people as one could argue that objects such as trees do not have a life and therefore cannot invoke the right to life. However, as habitants of the earth, they should be allowed a right to remain ‘living’ and not be killed by things such as deforestation. Human rights were also used as a means to protects the environment in the case of Oneryildiz v Turkey5, where a methane explosion caused a landslip and resulting in the deaths of the people living there. The most important question in this discussion is what does one consider ‘worthy’ of having a ‘rights’ claim? Who, what and on what basis? This question could be linked to ethics when considering what makes one a ‘person’. Many argue that humans can ‘claim’ rights and the environment cannot, therefore, rights were made by us and designed for our benefit. As mentioned before, there are different approaches to these questions. One with an anthropocentric view would favour the idea that only humans deserve rights, as this is an approach that favours human needs and priorities. Therefore, believing that our human rights are sufficient to protect not just ourselves but also the environment. One with an ecocentric point of view would favour the approach with the consideration of wider ecological processes of which humans are a part of. For example, the whole of nature and the majority of the environment that is not man-made has been in existence and living long before human beings were even created on earth. From that, one can only assume that it is our duty to protect nature and protect all that forms the ecosystem. The case of Sierra Club v. Morton 6, it was said that building through the wilderness would upset the beauty of the area and the ‘general interest’ was considered. Although the case was lost, the development never took part and the area is now part of the Sequoia National Park. All National Parks are protected. Technically, the environment has no rights ascribed to it by law, but we need a healthy environment to nurture and support us. We need the trees for oxygen which is essential for human life. One of the basic fundamental human rights is the right to clean air. 4 [1998] ECHR 7

5 [2004] ECHR 657 6 405 U.S. 727 2

To ensure we receive this right we must keep our air clean by changing the way we live our lives and stop doing things that cause air pollution, because only we have the power to stop this, the environment can’t do anything without our power. Under the ECHR, rights are seen as being either substantive or procedural. The majority of rights that are used to protect the environment are substantive, such as Article 2 (the right to life). A good example of a country that uses rights to protect the environment is Ecuador in South America. In 2008, Ecuador (and also Bolivia in 2011) adopted a form of ‘environmental rights’ onto their national constitutions. Under the Ecuadorian Constitution, ‘where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution’7. This has a positive impact on the environment as nature won’t be destroyed where life exists. The UK does not have a written constitution and therefore cannot include any environmental rights into the law, however there are many things in place to protect the environment such as conservation work and charities. The UK has many protected areas, mostly forests where wildlife exists. A well-known organisation in the UK is the National Trust. They are trying to make a change and impact current laws by suggesting new laws to the UK government when drafting a Bill on environmental rights and nature laws. There are already current laws in place that help protect nature. The Bathing Water Directive allows for safer and cleaner beaches for everyone. Places that are homes to rare species are designated Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), therefore they are protected by law. A lot of the treasured landscapes in the UK are protected by law meaning that landowners must do all they can to omit any harm that may be present to any species living there. The lack of specific environmental rights in place is not stressed enough. It is becoming a serious issue in today’s society and with our environment changing thanks to things such as global warming, there is little time to act. It can sometimes take years for Parliament to pass Acts of law, meaning we have to do all we can now to protect the environment without the help of the justice system. We as humans should feel the need to care for our planet out of respect for life, not just do it because it is the law. The only way to stop extinction of any species including our own, is to protect the environment it lives in. After all, this planet is a home for all life on Earth, so why is it that only humans have rights? Overall, I do believe that human rights are used to compensate for the lack of specific environmental rights to offer an effective means to protect the environment, because at the base of it all humans are protecting themselves, and to do that we need to protect our surroundings. However, it is important to have some laws in place, if not things such a deforestation and the disposal of toxic chemicals in nature will not be controlled and this will be dangerous not only for the environment but also for us. The Clean Air Act 1993 protects the environment by bringing in laws that help reduce the amount of air pollution. The UK now has the Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill 2018 but this merely sets out principles which a significantly weaker than rights. 7 Chapter 7: Rights for Nature, Art. 71.

3

To conclude, human rights are sufficient to protect the environment, as the majority of our rights protect nature as well as us. The cycle of life of all species has certain requirements that need the environments resources. To live healthy lives, the environment must be clean and protected. Having laws in place certainly helps keeps things under control.

1832 words.

4

Bibliography UK cases:

EU & U.S. cases: Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) Fisher v. Lowe (1983) (Mich. CA) Guerra v Italy [1998] ECHR 7

Table of legislation: Human Rights Act 1998 Ecuador’s Constitution 2008 The Bathing Water Regulations 2013 Clean Air Act 1993 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill 2018 Secondary sources: Christopher Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ Southern California Law Review 45 (1972): 450-501 accessed 2nd May 2019 accessed 5th May 2019 accessed on 7th May 2019 accessed on 13th May 2019 accessed on 14th May 2019 accessed on 15th May

5...