Recognition of a Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment - Essay Example

Recognition of a Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Number Department Introduction Althoughthe preponderance of pollution and environmentally destructive actions has inspired international and domestic laws that safeguard the protection of the environment in the 20th century, yet it is a fact that there is no recognition of the right to a clean and healthy environment in international law. This recognition is only restricted to specific states and regional blocks. For instance, Article 24 of the African Charter acknowledges the need for a clean and healthy environment by stating that all people are to have a general satisfactory environment which is favorable for their environment. Conversely, Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol asserts that everyone has a right to live in a healthy environment and to have ready access to basic public services, and that in this effect; states are to promote preservation, protection and improvement of the environment. The relegating of the human right to a clean and healthy environment to states’ prerogatives means that environmental law is neither serious nor powerful in international law, and thereby sparking the need for international recognition as shall be seen in the essay, forthwith. According to Cassuto, the notion that the recognition of human right to clean and healthy environment as the only means by which environmental law are to become serious and powerful in international law is validated by the assigning of this right, a less important status. The historical underpinning of this development is that in the 1960s and 1970s, rights were assigned different categories1. In light of the above, civil and political rights were considered first category rights while the second category rights comprised socio-economic rights. Solidarity rights in this case made up the third category. This development has made the inclusion of healthy and safe environment as rarity in the human rights framework since such efforts are seen as being relatable to the third category right. This failure to assign the right to a clean and healthy environment its own category of rights has always made concerns for environmental safety be taken as subservient. Again, the rationale that the consideration of human right to clean and healthy environment as the only way by which environmental law are to become binding and powerful in international law is underpinned by its ability to integrate and galvanize different concerns and methodologies within the human rights frameworks. According to Kurup2, the recognition and legislation of the human right to clean and healthy environment in turn will help in the codification of a separate rights chapter, section or article. It is also at this juncture that the new right can be made either procedural or substantive. By the right to clean and healthy environment being made substantive, emphasis will have been placed on concerns of definitions, in light of the human right to a clean environment. Conversely, making the matter of human rights more procedural in nature means that more emphasis will centre on the human right to procedural information. It is only through the legislation of this right that the approach (whether procedural or substantive) to tackling environmental crises can be determined, at both international and domestic levels. Currently, there are no international standards and norms that can be used to brook a consensus on the two options. Conversely, Hannan3 advances the idea that the need to legislate the human right to environmental protection is necessitated by the fact that environmental protection is derived from existing rights and freedoms- with these rights being expendable towards environmental ends. This does not necessitate the need to create new substantive human right to a clean environment but implies that environmental safety is derived from existing human freedoms and liberties. In a different wavelength, the need to legally recognize human right to clean and healthy environment as the only means by which environmental law are to become serious and powerful in international law is underscored by the fact that different states show varying degrees of commitment to environmental wellness. For instance, the human right to a clean environment is recognized in over 100 constitutions globally, but with the right to enforce this right being left as a matter of the state’s constitutional prerogatives. May4 observes that this problem of the state’s apathy is more pronounced in the less developed countries (LDCs), as member states therein quote extra expenditure as an impediment to enforcing the right to a clean and healthy environment. In this light, Nigeria is one of the few African countries which recognize this right. Article 20 of Nigeria’s 1999 constitution bequeaths the power to protect and better the environment and to safeguard land, air and water and the wildlife of Nigeria. The import of this is that it is only by the enforcement of this right to clean and healthy environment that efforts towards environmental preservation can be made binding upon, internationally. It is also important to legally recognize human right to clean and healthy environment at the international level because based on international law theory, all human rights reflect universal claims that are necessary to grant human beings decent lives that are part of the basic codes that are fundamental to all societies. This standpoint is worthy of credence, since it is impossible to access human rights such as the right to food, water, shelter and education in an environment whose resources are depleted, yet the globalised world draws from the same environment. Hamdard and the Centre for Federal Studies5 observe that the recognition of the foregoing is only tenable in international development when these aforementioned human rights are recognized as being self-evident in their essence, and not as a manifestation of imperialism. The crux of the matter herein is that, outside the legislation of human right to clean and healthy environment, some states, especially fledgling economies and democracies may begin to see neocolonial or imperial motivations in international environmental policies that may have been being furthered under the aegis of international players such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Thus, the legislation or the recognition of the right to a healthy and clean environment would make international states as players equal, and thereby helping dissipate the suspicion of political or socioeconomic hegemony. In a separate vein, it suffices to point out that the need to legislate the recognition of the right to clean and healthy environment in international relations and politics is the only way by which states’ competitive interests and their ethical obligations towards environmental safety and sustainability can be reconciled. Any critical observer agrees readily with Craig6 who argues that the gravity of the matter at hand is underpinned by the unequal rates of industrial development and the unequal relations that ensue there-from, between developed countries and the LDCs. This inequality between environmental and industrial relations is mostly epitomized by the industrialised North and the less developed South. Herein, industrialized countries play a bigger role in bringing about the greenhouse effect, yet their dominance in world politics and international relations and diplomacy keep them from being accountable. It is for the reason above that LDCs have never benefited from international environmental policies such as those that govern carbon trading, despite their developed counterparts being the chief culprit, and the LDCs being the main victims. The magnitude of the problem is also exemplified by the Kyoto Protocol’s failure to succeed in having developed states become accountable in environmental matters, and to have LDCs compensated for the drawbacks stemming from developed countries’ industrial bases. Therefore, the idea that the legislation of the right to clean and healthy environment is vital to the realization of binding international law is plausible, and potent enough to contain the ravages of state interests and competition. Conclusion The foregoing clearly demonstrates that the need for the legislation of the right to clean and healthy environment is supported and necessitated by the fact that matters environmental are directly relational to the right to healthy living and the right to life. Likewise, the warning that United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued, concerning the impending environmental dangers that may succeed environmental degradation in the coming two decades is a matter that makes the legislation of these rights nonnegotiable. Less developed economies must not just take stock of these dangers, but also realize that their interests can be best consolidated when they stand together in one accord, to have these laws passed, ratified and to have their interests acknowledged and respected in international forums such as the UNEP and the Kyoto Protocol. References Cassuto, N. D., 2004, “The Law of Words: Standing, Environment & Other Contested Terms.” [2004] 28 HELR 3, 79. Craig, K. R., 2004, “Should there be a Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment?” [2004] 34 ELR 9, 11013. Hamdard, J. & Centre for Federal Studies, 2012, “Protection of Human Rights through Environmental Ethics.” [2012] 4 OIDA IJSD 12, 55-62. Hannan, M. A., 2010, “Third Generation Human Rights and the Good Governance.” [2010] 2 OIDA IJSD 5, 41-50. Kurup, S., 2011, Right to Clean Environment: The Various Issues and Challenges. [2011] LP, 75. May, James. 2006, “Constituting Fundamental Environmental Rights Worldwide.” [2006] 23 PEL 11, 56. Read More