Principles of Environmental Law
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
FACULTY OF LAW
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Q:
(a)Select and explain three principles of international environmental law.
(b)Explain the processes by which these principles become law.
Humeirah F.
LGA050031
Semester 2
6th February 2006
“It is he who produceth gardens with trellises and without, and dates and tilth with produce of all kinds and olives and pomegranates, similar in kind and different in variety. Eat of their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess: for Allah loveth not the wasters.”
(Al Quran – 6:141)
Introduction:
The relationship between the environment and the human being can be likened to the relationship between a master and his servant. Power lies in the former and the latter can only be expected to be treated well if he provides evidence of unconditional servility. Limits cannot be transgressed and the master insists on the deference of his obsequious servant. Anything less would only prove to be detrimental to his fate in the end. Above all else, the slave will never be able to subjugate the master in any way, only free to make such assertions in his wildest dreams and most profound imaginings. The relationship stands on clear ends and will never be disturbed till the ends of time. The eminence of the master cannot be denied for he can get rid of the servant at will if the servant acts in disservice.
Human beings seldom understand this.
For the purpose of this assignment, three principles enshrined in the Rio and Stockholm Declarations on Human Environment have been selected to expose this power struggle between man and his environment. To begin with, the provision on indigenous knowledge in the light of environmental concerns will be approached with the purpose of revealing the symbiotic existence of certain cultures vis a vis their environment . It will then lead on to issues pertaining to the sovereignty of States to exploit their resources in so far that this does not impinge on the rights of their neighbours . Finally instances of exploitation by human beings of their environment will be dealt with in Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration. The purpose of the last two principles will be to enunciate the manifold attempts by egoistic Man to be master of the environment, thereby failing to understand the need to protect it.
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interest and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.(Principle 22 Rio Declaration on Human Environment)
(a) Indigenous culture has since time immemorial been subjected to abuse and exploitation, due to the indifference and heartlessness of industrial capitalists through mining and logging practices, among others . In the name of development and economic progress, acres of forests have been cleared to accommodate to the vagaries of modernism. Indigenous knowledge has thus been automatically forsaken.
Central to the modus vivendi of tribal and indigenous peoples is their sensitivity to the environment around them. The attachment is such that the slightest of modifications accruing to their surrounding by pollution-causing activities, can compromise their livelihood and even cost them their lives. Such intimate involvement with nature also signifies that they have developed over time, means and methods to harness knowledge of what affects the environment and what can be effectively done to mitigate damage.
So rich and profound is their knowledge, despite being labeled as ‘backward’, ‘savages’, ‘jungle animals’ by ‘cultured’ civilizations of this world, is that the notion of sustainable development was inherent to their culture well before it became the mantra of environmentalists following the novel apparition of the Brundlent Report.
To better understand the role of indigenous communities in matters of the environment, the debate of Holistic vs Reductionism from Gurdial Singh Nijar’s article can be adopted.
A mosquito is a mere pest to modern cultures. But a mosquito is one of the peripheral components of a complex food web that is linked to such other issues as cultivation practices and water cycle. Thus the approach of indigenous peoples is to understand elements not by separating them from others (hence reductionism) but studying them together with what influences and affects them (i.e Holistic approach). Such an understanding of various environmental matters explains the extensive knowledge of indigenous peoples about the environment. Gurdial Singh Nijar in the book similarly gives the example of a birdman he met in the Columbian Amazon forest who could tell from a bird’s note, what it was searching for. This in turn enabled him to identify what sort of worms were around, and from that deduce the nature of the soil and hence the trees in that area. Indigenous knowledge can thus be very helpful in determining aspects of preservation, conservation which should all be preceded by successful identification.
The indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak for example firmly believe that there is a cycle of energy that cannot be broken between plants, animals and the environment. Hence they believe that when hunting practices are over exploited by any member, he/she will ultimately be killed by the over exploited animal or plant and thus ‘energy will automatically be returned to the soil’ to restore the balance. Although such philosophies of thought may not appeal to scientific and logical minded ‘modern’ people, the concept of preservation is worth learning from. Moreover indigenous peoples are very cognizant of the need for repair, after the ‘tear’ in the environment. In Sarawak for instance, paddy fields after harvest are given time to ‘recuperate’ before plantation activities are furthered again. In contrast, the modern practice in most countries is to exhaust the natural minerals of a soil until additional artificial fertilizers are needed to encourage growth. The use of these foreign chemicals is of course blameworthy for a host of other environmental problems (river pollution, desertification, disease resistance etc etc).
(b)
Declaration of San Jose states in part:
“These Indian Peoples have a natural and inalienable right to the territories they possess and to reclaim those lands of which they have been dispossessed. They are entitled to the natural and cultural patrimony contained in their territories, as well as the right to determine freely their use and benefits.
The Cultural patrimony of these peoples included their philosophy of life and experiences, knowledge and accumulated historical achievements in the cultural, social, political, juridical, scientific and technological fields: for this reason they has a right to the access, utilization, diffusion and transmission of this entire patrimony.
Respect for the forms of autonomy required by these peoples is the essential condition for guaranteeing and realizing these rights.
1989 ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries also addresses the question of indigenous rights and culture, particularly in relation to environmental impact of development . However due to its ‘assimilationist’ trend, it has been replaced by the ILO Convention (169) whereby relevant provisions on indigenous knowledge are as follows: Articles 4, 5, 8, 13 and 23 which are relevant to the protection of Indigenous peoples' cultures, environments, and religious and political systems.
3.
The issue of traditional knowledge in relation to biological resources can also be classified as one of the maintenance of indigenous heritage. This is recognized in paragraph 12 of the Preamble to the 1992 Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity:
‘Recognizing the close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components.’
Article 8 of the Convention obliges each signatory state to preserve the practices and to promote wider application of traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities, ‘with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovation and practices.” Both Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles adopted at UNCED also include reference to the use of indigenous knowledge.
In 1994, the United Nations released a final report on Human Rights and the Environment, which had been prepared by a Special Rapporteur commissioned by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. As an appendix to this report, a draft Declaration on the Right to the Environment includes provisions relevant to the protection of Indigenous knowledge. Paragraphs 6 and 13 provide generally for biodiversity conservation, and for equitable benefit sharing from environmental conservation. Paragraph 14 provides for Indigenous peoples' rights:
Indigenous peoples have the right to control their lands, territories and natural resources and to maintain their traditional way of life. This includes the right to security in the enjoyment of their means of subsistence....Indigenous peoples have the right to protection against any action or course of conduct that may result in the destruction or degradation of their territories, including land, air, water, sea-ice, wildlife or other resources.(30)
Despite the existence of the above international instruments, implementation and enforcement at the domestic level has been poor, if not patently absent. This problem is compounded by the fact that State Parties that do not sign the conventions deny their indigenous peoples relevant remedies before the international tribunals . But that’s not the end of the story. Although, independent of the above instruments, domestic laws have been enacted in Australia and New Zealand, for example to safeguard indigenous cultural heritage. In New Zealand these include the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal Act 1975. In Australia, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 contribute to the maintenance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, by recognizing the connection with traditional country by preserving native land titles as well as sites and objects of significance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
ILO Convention (169) gives the right to indigenous peoples to be consulted and to participate in national and regional development through the use,management and conservation of environmental resources. The problem is that most states have not ratified this Convention. The Covention on Biological Diversity for its part, only recognizes in its preamble the ‘desirability’ of ‘sharing equitably’ the benefits arising from use of traditional knowledge.
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond limits of national jurisdiction. (Principle 2 Rio Declaration)
The principle enshrined in the above paragraph can be summed up as “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose .”
Principle 2 contains two important positions in environmental law: territorial sovereignty as well as respect for the rights of others. It has been customary law since 1905 Trail Smelter Arbitration that no nation may undertake acts on its territory that will harm the territory of another state. This rule has been recognized as binding in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment and Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development .
The UN Charter does not expressly mention environmental issues but art 74 reflects the agreement of the UN’s members that ‘their policy in their metropolitan areas must be based on the general principle of ‘good neighbourliness’ and take account of ‘the interests and well-being of the rest of the world in social, economic and commercial matters.’
The Trail Smelter Case is also an example of the recognition of “General Principle of law ” whereby the matter was decided based on the principles of ‘state responsibility’ and ‘due diligence ’.
Above all, the Trail Smelter Case exposes a great philosophy that transcends the borders of the legitimacy of legal rules. Within the territorial borders of the state, The culprit factory in operation that emitted the pollution was not in any way in breach of any required standards. Similarly the State then was not in breach of any international obligation. The problem was not with the activity but the harm it caused.
Despite the reassertion of the principle in various international instruments and domestic ones as well , the world continues to suffer from the activities of rebellious States, indifferent to the concerns of others. In the Nuclear Test Cases for example, the flagrant usurpation of rights did not involve only those of Australia but other countries as well, because of the inevitable radioactive fall-out during the atmospheric tests. Much was at stake in this case whereby jurisprudential concerns over a hierarchy of sovereign rights was raised (Australia is more sovereign than France? ) as well as introducing precautionary vanguard that would impinge on international affairs of other states .
On a practical side however, despite Judge de Castro celebrated opinion in the Nuclear Tests Case , the moratorium signed by President Francois Mitterand in 1995 was willfully breached in 1996 by President Jacques Chirac. Australia and New Zealand attempted to open the case again but failed to do by a procedural constraint .
(b) The law in this area is abundant. The 1951 International Plant Protection Convention expressed the need to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases across national boundaries. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear tests if the explosion would cause radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted and the 1968 African Conservation Convention requires consultation and co-operation between parties where development plans are ‘likely to affect the natural resources of other state.’ The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 1979 which entered into force in 1983 recognizes not only obvious episodes of damage to the environment as in the Trail Smelter Case but also envisages reduction and control of overall pollution emitted by countries during their daily economic, industrial and commercial activities .
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 his environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial or other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated. (Principle 1: Stockholm Declaration)
In the landmark case of Bombay Municipal Corporation v Olga Tellis , the constitutional right to life was invoked to restrain the Municipality from evicting pavement dwellers due to road works. It was held that their right to life could be denied by depriving a person of those elements that sustain life itself. Among the other rights named as those that sustain life, was the right to a healthy environment .
The second aspect of the above statement is the element of intergenerational equity whereby it introduces the concept of sustainable development, explained earlier , as well the main project of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development.
The illustrations of human rights violations are manifold in the above statement and refer to ‘environmental racism ’. A very succinct example of oppression is that of dumping waste substances in the South by the Northern territories . This is why, although colonialism has been progressively abolished , its presence is still felt in a different form: economic colonialism whereby monopolies and oligopolies exploit human resources as well as the environment to further their industrial activities .
Bibliography
• Boer, B., Ramsay, R., Rothwell, D R., International Environmental Law in the Asia Pacific,(1998) Kluwer Law International: United Kingdom
• Boyle and Anderson, Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection, (1996) Oxford University Press: Oxford
• Boyle, A., Birnie, P., International Law & The Environment, 2nd Ed (2002), Oxford University Press: Oxford
• Nijar, G S., Sharom,A. (ed), Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge systems and protecting Biodiversity, (2004) Advanced Professional Courses: Kuala Lumpur
FACULTY OF LAW
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Q:
(a)Select and explain three principles of international environmental law.
(b)Explain the processes by which these principles become law.
Humeirah F.
LGA050031
Semester 2
6th February 2006
“It is he who produceth gardens with trellises and without, and dates and tilth with produce of all kinds and olives and pomegranates, similar in kind and different in variety. Eat of their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess: for Allah loveth not the wasters.”
(Al Quran – 6:141)
Introduction:
The relationship between the environment and the human being can be likened to the relationship between a master and his servant. Power lies in the former and the latter can only be expected to be treated well if he provides evidence of unconditional servility. Limits cannot be transgressed and the master insists on the deference of his obsequious servant. Anything less would only prove to be detrimental to his fate in the end. Above all else, the slave will never be able to subjugate the master in any way, only free to make such assertions in his wildest dreams and most profound imaginings. The relationship stands on clear ends and will never be disturbed till the ends of time. The eminence of the master cannot be denied for he can get rid of the servant at will if the servant acts in disservice.
Human beings seldom understand this.
For the purpose of this assignment, three principles enshrined in the Rio and Stockholm Declarations on Human Environment have been selected to expose this power struggle between man and his environment. To begin with, the provision on indigenous knowledge in the light of environmental concerns will be approached with the purpose of revealing the symbiotic existence of certain cultures vis a vis their environment . It will then lead on to issues pertaining to the sovereignty of States to exploit their resources in so far that this does not impinge on the rights of their neighbours . Finally instances of exploitation by human beings of their environment will be dealt with in Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration. The purpose of the last two principles will be to enunciate the manifold attempts by egoistic Man to be master of the environment, thereby failing to understand the need to protect it.
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interest and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.(Principle 22 Rio Declaration on Human Environment)
(a) Indigenous culture has since time immemorial been subjected to abuse and exploitation, due to the indifference and heartlessness of industrial capitalists through mining and logging practices, among others . In the name of development and economic progress, acres of forests have been cleared to accommodate to the vagaries of modernism. Indigenous knowledge has thus been automatically forsaken.
Central to the modus vivendi of tribal and indigenous peoples is their sensitivity to the environment around them. The attachment is such that the slightest of modifications accruing to their surrounding by pollution-causing activities, can compromise their livelihood and even cost them their lives. Such intimate involvement with nature also signifies that they have developed over time, means and methods to harness knowledge of what affects the environment and what can be effectively done to mitigate damage.
So rich and profound is their knowledge, despite being labeled as ‘backward’, ‘savages’, ‘jungle animals’ by ‘cultured’ civilizations of this world, is that the notion of sustainable development was inherent to their culture well before it became the mantra of environmentalists following the novel apparition of the Brundlent Report.
To better understand the role of indigenous communities in matters of the environment, the debate of Holistic vs Reductionism from Gurdial Singh Nijar’s article can be adopted.
A mosquito is a mere pest to modern cultures. But a mosquito is one of the peripheral components of a complex food web that is linked to such other issues as cultivation practices and water cycle. Thus the approach of indigenous peoples is to understand elements not by separating them from others (hence reductionism) but studying them together with what influences and affects them (i.e Holistic approach). Such an understanding of various environmental matters explains the extensive knowledge of indigenous peoples about the environment. Gurdial Singh Nijar in the book similarly gives the example of a birdman he met in the Columbian Amazon forest who could tell from a bird’s note, what it was searching for. This in turn enabled him to identify what sort of worms were around, and from that deduce the nature of the soil and hence the trees in that area. Indigenous knowledge can thus be very helpful in determining aspects of preservation, conservation which should all be preceded by successful identification.
The indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak for example firmly believe that there is a cycle of energy that cannot be broken between plants, animals and the environment. Hence they believe that when hunting practices are over exploited by any member, he/she will ultimately be killed by the over exploited animal or plant and thus ‘energy will automatically be returned to the soil’ to restore the balance. Although such philosophies of thought may not appeal to scientific and logical minded ‘modern’ people, the concept of preservation is worth learning from. Moreover indigenous peoples are very cognizant of the need for repair, after the ‘tear’ in the environment. In Sarawak for instance, paddy fields after harvest are given time to ‘recuperate’ before plantation activities are furthered again. In contrast, the modern practice in most countries is to exhaust the natural minerals of a soil until additional artificial fertilizers are needed to encourage growth. The use of these foreign chemicals is of course blameworthy for a host of other environmental problems (river pollution, desertification, disease resistance etc etc).
(b)
Declaration of San Jose states in part:
“These Indian Peoples have a natural and inalienable right to the territories they possess and to reclaim those lands of which they have been dispossessed. They are entitled to the natural and cultural patrimony contained in their territories, as well as the right to determine freely their use and benefits.
The Cultural patrimony of these peoples included their philosophy of life and experiences, knowledge and accumulated historical achievements in the cultural, social, political, juridical, scientific and technological fields: for this reason they has a right to the access, utilization, diffusion and transmission of this entire patrimony.
Respect for the forms of autonomy required by these peoples is the essential condition for guaranteeing and realizing these rights.
1989 ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries also addresses the question of indigenous rights and culture, particularly in relation to environmental impact of development . However due to its ‘assimilationist’ trend, it has been replaced by the ILO Convention (169) whereby relevant provisions on indigenous knowledge are as follows: Articles 4, 5, 8, 13 and 23 which are relevant to the protection of Indigenous peoples' cultures, environments, and religious and political systems.
3.
The issue of traditional knowledge in relation to biological resources can also be classified as one of the maintenance of indigenous heritage. This is recognized in paragraph 12 of the Preamble to the 1992 Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity:
‘Recognizing the close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components.’
Article 8 of the Convention obliges each signatory state to preserve the practices and to promote wider application of traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities, ‘with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovation and practices.” Both Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles adopted at UNCED also include reference to the use of indigenous knowledge.
In 1994, the United Nations released a final report on Human Rights and the Environment, which had been prepared by a Special Rapporteur commissioned by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. As an appendix to this report, a draft Declaration on the Right to the Environment includes provisions relevant to the protection of Indigenous knowledge. Paragraphs 6 and 13 provide generally for biodiversity conservation, and for equitable benefit sharing from environmental conservation. Paragraph 14 provides for Indigenous peoples' rights:
Indigenous peoples have the right to control their lands, territories and natural resources and to maintain their traditional way of life. This includes the right to security in the enjoyment of their means of subsistence....Indigenous peoples have the right to protection against any action or course of conduct that may result in the destruction or degradation of their territories, including land, air, water, sea-ice, wildlife or other resources.(30)
Despite the existence of the above international instruments, implementation and enforcement at the domestic level has been poor, if not patently absent. This problem is compounded by the fact that State Parties that do not sign the conventions deny their indigenous peoples relevant remedies before the international tribunals . But that’s not the end of the story. Although, independent of the above instruments, domestic laws have been enacted in Australia and New Zealand, for example to safeguard indigenous cultural heritage. In New Zealand these include the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal Act 1975. In Australia, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 contribute to the maintenance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, by recognizing the connection with traditional country by preserving native land titles as well as sites and objects of significance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
ILO Convention (169) gives the right to indigenous peoples to be consulted and to participate in national and regional development through the use,management and conservation of environmental resources. The problem is that most states have not ratified this Convention. The Covention on Biological Diversity for its part, only recognizes in its preamble the ‘desirability’ of ‘sharing equitably’ the benefits arising from use of traditional knowledge.
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond limits of national jurisdiction. (Principle 2 Rio Declaration)
The principle enshrined in the above paragraph can be summed up as “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose .”
Principle 2 contains two important positions in environmental law: territorial sovereignty as well as respect for the rights of others. It has been customary law since 1905 Trail Smelter Arbitration that no nation may undertake acts on its territory that will harm the territory of another state. This rule has been recognized as binding in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment and Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development .
The UN Charter does not expressly mention environmental issues but art 74 reflects the agreement of the UN’s members that ‘their policy in their metropolitan areas must be based on the general principle of ‘good neighbourliness’ and take account of ‘the interests and well-being of the rest of the world in social, economic and commercial matters.’
The Trail Smelter Case is also an example of the recognition of “General Principle of law ” whereby the matter was decided based on the principles of ‘state responsibility’ and ‘due diligence ’.
Above all, the Trail Smelter Case exposes a great philosophy that transcends the borders of the legitimacy of legal rules. Within the territorial borders of the state, The culprit factory in operation that emitted the pollution was not in any way in breach of any required standards. Similarly the State then was not in breach of any international obligation. The problem was not with the activity but the harm it caused.
Despite the reassertion of the principle in various international instruments and domestic ones as well , the world continues to suffer from the activities of rebellious States, indifferent to the concerns of others. In the Nuclear Test Cases for example, the flagrant usurpation of rights did not involve only those of Australia but other countries as well, because of the inevitable radioactive fall-out during the atmospheric tests. Much was at stake in this case whereby jurisprudential concerns over a hierarchy of sovereign rights was raised (Australia is more sovereign than France? ) as well as introducing precautionary vanguard that would impinge on international affairs of other states .
On a practical side however, despite Judge de Castro celebrated opinion in the Nuclear Tests Case , the moratorium signed by President Francois Mitterand in 1995 was willfully breached in 1996 by President Jacques Chirac. Australia and New Zealand attempted to open the case again but failed to do by a procedural constraint .
(b) The law in this area is abundant. The 1951 International Plant Protection Convention expressed the need to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases across national boundaries. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear tests if the explosion would cause radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted and the 1968 African Conservation Convention requires consultation and co-operation between parties where development plans are ‘likely to affect the natural resources of other state.’ The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 1979 which entered into force in 1983 recognizes not only obvious episodes of damage to the environment as in the Trail Smelter Case but also envisages reduction and control of overall pollution emitted by countries during their daily economic, industrial and commercial activities .
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 his environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial or other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated. (Principle 1: Stockholm Declaration)
In the landmark case of Bombay Municipal Corporation v Olga Tellis , the constitutional right to life was invoked to restrain the Municipality from evicting pavement dwellers due to road works. It was held that their right to life could be denied by depriving a person of those elements that sustain life itself. Among the other rights named as those that sustain life, was the right to a healthy environment .
The second aspect of the above statement is the element of intergenerational equity whereby it introduces the concept of sustainable development, explained earlier , as well the main project of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development.
The illustrations of human rights violations are manifold in the above statement and refer to ‘environmental racism ’. A very succinct example of oppression is that of dumping waste substances in the South by the Northern territories . This is why, although colonialism has been progressively abolished , its presence is still felt in a different form: economic colonialism whereby monopolies and oligopolies exploit human resources as well as the environment to further their industrial activities .
Bibliography
• Boer, B., Ramsay, R., Rothwell, D R., International Environmental Law in the Asia Pacific,(1998) Kluwer Law International: United Kingdom
• Boyle and Anderson, Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection, (1996) Oxford University Press: Oxford
• Boyle, A., Birnie, P., International Law & The Environment, 2nd Ed (2002), Oxford University Press: Oxford
• Nijar, G S., Sharom,A. (ed), Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge systems and protecting Biodiversity, (2004) Advanced Professional Courses: Kuala Lumpur
posted by Sabah Carrim at 8:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home