Climate Change and Human Rights

Course Lecturer/Instructor: Irakli Giviashvili, PhD (Nottingham Trent University, Law School), LLM (University of Heidelberg, Faculty of Law)

Language of Instruction (teaching language): English

Fees: 550 GEL

Note: it is also an option, to pay 100 GEL after registration in order to enrol in a group and then to proceed to payment 4 days before the start date (in such case 100 GEL will be deducted from the overall fee of 550 GEL)

• Start date: 18 February, 2025
• End date: 28 March, 2025
• Lecture days:

Tuesdays 11.00 – 12.30 and Fridays 11.00 – 12.30 (group A)

or, alternatively

Tuesdays 19.00 - 20.30 and Fridays 19.00 - 20.30 (group B)

• Lecture duration: 1.30 hour (10-minute break is included)
• Lectures per week: 2 (3 hours)
• Total number of lectures: 12 (18 hours)
• Average number of students: 12 per group

Course Format: HyFlex (Hybrid-Frexible). HyFlex teaching combines face-to-face and online learning. Each lecture of the course is offered in-person, synchronously online via Zoom, and asynchronously online (through video recordings in Google Drive) i.e. for students who may not be able to connect to Zoom on a given day

Certificates: Certificates will be awarded upon completion of the course

Course Prerequisite: 

Prerequisite knowledge (for example, in legal science or environmental science) not required

Adequate skills of the English language required (however, no exams/tests for admission will be held)

Minimum age: 18

Venue: Sustainability Science Academy, 5 Marjanishvili Street, Tbilisi, 0102, Georgia

Contact Details:

+995577508487

ssa.edu.ge@gmail.com 

1. Introduction

It has been recognized worldwide that climate change may result in violation of various human rights. Growing number of judgments of national and international courts establish violations of human rights as a result of negative effects of climate change. Therefore, this has resulted in widespread recognition of the potential of a human rights-based approach to tackling climate change.

The right to a healthy environment is recognized by a great majority of member states of the UN and eventually, in 2022 it was recognized as a human right by the UN General Assembly. According to the UN, the right to a healthy environment encompasses the right to be protected against negative effects of climate change.

For example, the European Court of Human Rights has produced a body of environmental jurisprudence in which the “greening” of existing rights of the European Convention on Human Rights has taken place (in more than 100 cases). And in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (2024) the European Court of Human Rights found that the right to private life and home (Article 8) encompasses a right to protection from the effects of climate change.

2. Content of the Course

2.1 Environmental Rights

There is a strong interrelationship between environmental protection and human rights. Environmental harm in our contemporary world has ability to easily infringe values that human rights are designed to protect. It means that environmental degradation may affect human rights negatively. Therefore, available human rights instrument can be used as a tool for the protection of individuals against the consequences of environmental harm. 

Certain new types of human rights have been designed for environmental protection (such as the right to a healthy environment or procedural environmental rights) and some existing human rights have been interpreted creatively i.e. “greened“ specifically for that purpose (such as the right to live, respect for private and home, the right to property etc.). There are the following major categories of environmental rights:

2.1.1 Right to a Healthy Environment

Environmental rights may be used to denote the right to healthy environment. The right to a healthy environment is a substantive environmental right. The right to a healthy environment refers to an entitlement to a certain environmental quality. In various adopted documents there are different/alternative formulations of the right to a healthy environment: such as “clean“, “sustainable“, “safe“, “favourable“, “decent“, “secure“, “ecologically sound/balanced“ environment or the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment etc. 

2.1.2 „Greening“ of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) has derived environmental rights from existing human rights, in particular from the right to life (Article 2), the right to respect for private and family life and for home (Article 8), the right to property (Article 1 of the Protocol 1) and access to justice (Article 6) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Thus, a “green” approach to reading of the ECHR has been taking place. Likewise, the UN human rights system has recognized that environmental rights can be developed by interpreting existing right creatively, namely human rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

2.1.3 Procedural Environmental Rights

Environmental rights may be used to denote the three procedural environmental rights, namely  1. the right of access to environmental information, 2. the right of public participation in environmental decision-making and 3. the right of access to environmental justice. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) was adopted in 1998 in the framework of the UNECE. The adoption of the Aarhus Convention was a giant step forward in the development of international law in the field of citizens’ procedural environmental rights.

2.2 Right to a Healthy Environment and Climate Change

In 2022, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a milestone document that recognized the human right to a healthy environment. Namely, on 28 July 2022 the General Assembly adopted resolution - The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment (A/RES/76/300) thus recognizing right to a healthy environment as a human right.

It should be noted that the right to a healthy environment is recognized in law by at least 156 member states of the UN. Georgia is among countries recognizing right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right. According to Article 29 of the Constitution of Georgia „everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment and enjoy the natural environment and public space“.  

According to the UN, the right to a healthy environment includes six substantive elements and the first one is a safe climate i.e. the right to be protected against negative effects of climate change. Other five substantive elements are: clean air; clean water; healthy and sustainably produced food; non-toxic environments in which to live, work, study and play; and healthy biodiversity and ecosystems.

According to David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, safe climate element of the right to a healthy environment imposes obligation on states to address climate change, including to take mitigation actions. And the failure of states to take adequate steps to address climate change can constitute a violation of the right to a healthy environment (A/74/161, 2019).

According to the UN, the devastating effects of the current climate crisis on human rights are evident and there is a crucial role for human rights in catalysing actions to address climate crisis. David Boyd as UN Special Rapporteur recommends all states to prepare rights-based deep decarbonization plans, intended to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 19, of the Paris Agreement. In order to secure the right to a healthy environment, the UN makes practical recommendations with respect to addressing society’s addiction to fossil fuels; accelerating other mitigation actions; enhancing adaptation to protect vulnerable people; ramping up climate finance; and financing loss and damage (A/74/161, 2019).

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, 15 November 2017

On 7 February 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published an Advisory Opinion and addressed two issues: 1. the interrelationship between human rights and the environment; and 2. the human rights affected by degradation to the environment, including the right to a healthy environment. The Court made it clear that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental human right; that degradation of the environment, including adverse impacts of climate change, affects the enjoyment of this fundamental human right and others.

Constitutional Court of Republic of Korea, Case 2020 Heonma 389, 29 August 2024

The ground-breaking judgment found that South Korea’s climate measures violated its constitution that grant citizens the right a healthy environment. Constitutional Court stated that the country’s climate measures were insufficient for safeguarding citizens’ environmental rights. The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea is now required create year-by-year carbon-reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 by 2026. This ruling is the first of its kind in Asia, and could set a powerful example for the rest of the region.

Supreme Court of Colombia, Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente, Decision of 5 April 2018

Plaintiffs have sued several governmental bodies of Columbia to enforce their rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food, and water. The plaintiffs alleged that climate change along with the government's failure to reduce deforestation violated their rights. On April 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Colombia recognized that the failure of States to take adequate steps to address climate change violated the right to a healthy environment. The Supreme Court declared that the Colombian Amazon accordingly was entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration.

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies), 2020

Greenpeace Mexico filed a lawsuit against the Mexican government contesting the constitutionality of two electricity sector policies that would limit renewables. Greenpeace Mexico asked to declare the policies unconstitutional for violating the right to a healthy environment and international commitments to tackle climate change. The court declared that the policies violated the human right to a healthy environment by displacing renewable energies, preventing Mexico from meeting the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions targets.

Lahore High Court, Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 25501/201, Decision of 4 April 2015.

Plaintiff argued that the government should pursue climate mitigation or adaptation efforts, and that the government’s failure to meet its climate change adaptation targets had resulted in immediate impacts on human rights. The court declared that the constitutional rights to life and human dignity included the right to a healthy and clean environment. Although the government had formulated a climate change policy and implementation framework, the court found violation since there had been no real progress with implementation.

2.3 „Greening“ of Human Rights and Climate Change

For example, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has produced a body of environmental jurisprudence in which the “greening” of existing rights of the ECHR has taken place. The ECHR does not recognize the right to a healthy environment. The European Convention on Human Rights does not mention the environment and it is not specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment as such. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has interpreted the provisions of the ECHR creatively in a “green” way, in particular to protect individuals against the consequences of environmental harm.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recognized that damage to the environment or environmental problems like pollution and excessive noise may affect certain rights of the Convention. The case law of the ECtHR makes it clear that environmental rights can be derived from the Convention rights such as the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life and for home (comprising life quality, well-being and health), the right to property  and access to justice.

In 2008, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that recognised the link between climate and human rights (“Human Rights and Climate Change”, A/HRC/RES/7/23). It was followed by other resolutions on the topic (e.g. “Human Rights and Climate Change”, A/HRC/RES/41/21, 2019). In 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee prepared “General Comment No. 36”  recognising the connection between the right to life and the consequences of climate change (CPR/C/GC/36, Article 6: Right to Life, paragraph 62). The mandate of the Special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change was established in October 2021 by the UN Human Rights Council.

In February 2022, EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU agreed a set of Council Conclusions on Climate Diplomacy, which placed special emphasis on the links between climate change and human rights.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (2024)

On 9 April, 2024 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered truly landmark and historic judgement on the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The case concerned a complaint by a Swiss association about the consequences of climate change. Applicants argued that the increase in heatwaves posed a health risk to them. 

The European Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 and Article 6 of the Convention. The Court found that the right to respect for private life and for home (Article 8) of the European Convention (ECHR) encompasses a right to effective protection from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. The Swiss government had failed to comply with its own targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and had failed to set a national carbon budget. Thus, the European Court declared that Article 8 i. encompasses a right to protection from the effects of climate change; and ii. imposes a new duty on states to adopt measures to mitigate and adapt to effects of climate change.

The Judgment in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2019)

This is the first decision by any court in the world ordering state to limit greenhouse gas emissions for human rights reasons. A Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government to require it to take additional  measures to prevent climate change. According to judgment of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (dated 20 December 2019), by failing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by end-2020, the Dutch government was acting unlawfully in contravention of its duty of care under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private life and for home) of the ECHR. The court determined that the Dutch government had an obligation under the ECHR to protect these rights from the threat of climate change.

VZW Klimaatzaak v Kingdom of Belgium & Others (2023)

Similar to the Urgenda case, this case was brought by an organization of citizens, and 58,000 citizen co-plaintiffs, arguing that Belgian law required the Belgian government's approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to be more effective. In VZW Klimaatzaak case, plaintiffs called for greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 42 to 48% in 2025 and at least 55 to 65% in 2030. According to judgment of the Court of Appeal of Brussels (dated 30 November 2023), articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR were breached. It ordered authorities to reduce their greenhouse gas GHG emissions of 55% compared to the 1990 level by 2030.

Neubauer v Germany (2021)

A group of German youth filed a legal challenge to Germany's Federal Climate Protection Act (“Bundesklimaschutzgesetz” or “KSG”) in the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the KSG's target of reducing GHGs by 55% until 2030 from 1990 levels was insufficient. The complainants alleged that the KSG therefore violated their human rights as protected by the Germany's constitution. On April 29, 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court published its decision declaring parts of the KSG as incompatible with fundamental rights for failing to set sufficient provisions for emission cuts beyond 2030. For the first time in its jurisprudence, the Court stated that human rights afford protection against the greenhouse gas reduction burdens imposed by Art. 20a of the Constitution. In response to the decision, the federal lawmakers passed a bill approving an adapted KSG that requires, at a minimum, reduction of 65% in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In March 2023, the General Assembly of the UN adopted resolution requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide Advisory Opinion on State’s Obligations Concerning Climate Change (GA/12497, 29 March 2023). The General Assembly asked the ICJ to weigh in, inter alia, on the following question: obligations of states to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for states and for present and future generations. The above General Assembly resolution drew upon “particular regard” to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement.

2.4 Procedural Environmental Rights and Climate Change

Procedural environmental rights of access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters have great potential to contribute to addressing climate change. The Aarhus Convention sets out a comprehensive framework for procedural environmental rights and is a model that is being used in countries throughout the world. The Aarhus Convention is an efficient tool at disposal of civil society for the purpose of tackling climate change. Procedural environmental rights can make an enormous difference in strengthening the role of the public in tackling climate change.

3. What you'll learn

• links between climate change and human rights
• Three major categories of environmental rights:

    the right to a healthy environment;

    derived environmental rights from other human rights 

    procedural environmental rights

• basics of the UN system of human rights
• basics of climate change law
• basics of the Strasbourg system of human rights
• leading cases on climate change/human rights litigation around the world
• identification of violations of human rights caused by climate change
• prevention of violation of human rights as a result of climate change
• redressing violations of human rights caused by climate change
• implementation of human rights for the purpose of tackling climate change
• human rights obligations of states regarding climate change mitigation measures