The United Nations Human Rights Commission in a draft resolution on ‘Human Rights and the Environment’ expressed that “the preservation of life-sustaining ecosystems under conditions of rapid scientific and technological development is of vital importance for the protection of the human species and the promotion of human rights.”
The Indian case study shows that it is indeed possible, with a little judicial creativity, to widen the scope of protection of human rights such as the right to life to include the right to a healthy environment given the close linkage of the two.
Thus, it can be said that the human right to a life of dignity is intrinsically linked to the right to a clean and healthy environment. [ 3]
Thus, there must be a balance between the right to development and the protection of the environment.
Principle 1 of the Draft Principles on Human Rights and the Environment which was annexed to the Report explicitly expressed that human rights and the environment are indivisible. [ 10] . Thus, this Report heralded a shift in thinking towards the existence of a human right to a healthy and decent environment. [ 11] .
The United Nations Human Rights Commission in a draft resolution on ‘Human Rights and the Environment’ expressed that “the preservation of life-sustaining ecosystems under conditions of rapid scientific and technological development is of vital importance for the protection of the human species and the promotion of human rights. ”.
Article 24 of the ACHPR protects the right to environment which should be general , satisfactory and favourable to development. It is evident that this obligation is vague and therefore, scholars argue that it does not have the status of a human right [ 13] and at best seeks to prevent pollution [ 14] .
This paper seeks to analyse efforts made at the international level to accord the right to a clean environment the status of a human right. The paper will explore both international environmental law instruments and international human rights instruments to discern the current status of this right. Lastly, the paper will, using India as an example, elaborate upon how the right to environment can be read to be a human right.
International environmental law seeks to protect the environment per se through the imposing obligations on governments, corporations and individuals and the setting of behavioural standards. Several factors such as air and water pollution and extinction of species and the negative social and health impact of the same such as disruption of the food chain, led to the gaining of significance of this field of law in the international community. While, some argue that this field of law is eco-centric, others argue that it is anthropocentric. It is the author’s belief that it is neither. International environmental law seeks to balance the needs of human beings with the need to protect the environment from exploitation. The key concept here is that of sustainable development.
The Indian case study shows that it is indeed possible , with a little judicial creativity, to widen the scope of protection of human rights such as the right to life to include the right to a healthy environment given the close linkage of the two.
At the international level also, there exists no explicit right to environment. However, it may be read into other rights. For instance, while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 does not acknowledge the human right to environment, the same can be read into the right to life and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. [ 16] Similarly, the right can also be read into the inherent right to life protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1996 (ICCPR). [ 17]