Today, the Human Rights Committee, held that Australia has violated the rights of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to protect them from climate change. This is the most important climate decision yet issued by an international human rights tribunal. 1/12
Huge congratulations to the Torres Strait Islanders who brought the case: Daniel Billy, Ted Billy, Nazareth Fauid, Stanley Marama, Yessie Mosby, Keith Pabai, Kabay Tamu and Nazareth Warria, and to the team at ClientEarth who so ably represented them. 2/12
The Human Rights Committee oversees compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a core global human rights treaty. Here’s a link to the press release from the Committee, which includes a link to the decision itself. 3/12 ohchr.org/en/press-relea…
The Islanders, who are Australian nationals, claimed that Australia violated their rights to life (art. 6), private/family life (art.17), and cultural identity (art. 27), by failing to mitigate its carbon emissions and protect them from climate harm. 4/12 aljazeera.com/news/2019/5/13…
The Committee decision mainly avoided mitigation. This is not another Urgenda. This is disappointing but understandable. Applying human rights law to mitigation is difficult! But the Committee will have to address the issue at some point, and it missed an opportunity here. 5/12
Instead, the decision focuses on adaptation. The Committee said that the authors are already experiencing adverse effects to their homes, territory, and traditional ways of life; and Australia had failed to implement adequate adaptation measures to protect them. 6/12
This was enough to find a violation of arts. 17 and 27. On art. 6, it said that the authors had not shown “a real and reasonably foreseeable risk of being exposed to a situation of physical endangerment or extreme precarity that could threaten their right to life.” 7/12
Echoing its 2020 decision in Teitiota, it said the possibility the islands might become uninhabitable in 10-15 years means a possible future violation of art 6, but that allows time for "intervening acts” to protect them. Five members dissented; they would find a violation now. 8
The Committee held Australia must provide effective remedies, including compensation to the authors for the harm that they have suffered and consultation with the communities to conduct needs assessments. Australia should report within 180 days on the measures it takes. 9/12
Beyond Australia, the decision has major implications for many other states in similar situations. The Committee can't force compliance with its interpretation of the ICCPR, but its views receive respect, and in some countries are legally binding. 10/12
Bottom line: this is a pathbreaking decision on the responsibility of states to protect their people from climate harms. It will encourage more cases to be brought to the Committee – some of which will require it to address the issues of mitigation that it avoided today. 11/12
More immediately, it is very likely to influence domestic courts and other international tribunals as they continue to decide the rapidly increasing number of climate cases – including, perhaps, before the International Court of Justice. 12/12 vanuatuicj.com
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives took a major step towards enacting the most protective law yet adopted on human rights in international conservation. In this thread, I describe the background to the proposed law, its provisions, and possible next steps. 1/24
In October 2021, the House Committee on Natural Resources subcommittee on water, oceans, and wildlife held an oversight hearing to examine the use of U.S. funds in alleged human rights violations in national parks and protected areas. 2/24 naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/prote…
The allegations focused on (but weren’t limited to) those that were described in a series of Buzzfeed articles beginning in March 2019, which included reports of murder, rape, and torture committed by park rangers in Africa and Asia. 3/24 buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwar…
Today the Committee on the Rights of the Child published its long-awaited decision in the climate case brought by 16 children and youth. While not a complete win, it is a pathbreaking precedent that provides a strong basis for future claims, as this (lengthy) thread explains.1/21
Here’s a link to the decisions – one for each of the five States against which the claim was filed. You’ll need to scroll down for the links. 2/21 tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/tr…
The Committee rejected the claim as inadmissible and so will not consider it on the merits. Nevertheless, the decision is a major win because it makes clear that each State has duties to address climate harm outside its own territory. 3/21
WWF’s new Social Policies and Standards, modeled on the World Bank, have basic flaws. WWF should start over, building on UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and human rights norms. My comments to WWF are attached; six main points follow. 1/7 mediafire.com/file/djd94a93r…
WWF opened a consultation period on the Safeguards six weeks ago, but it adopted the Safeguards two years ago and has been implementing them ever since. This “consultation” cannot provide meaningful input into decisions that have already been made. 2/7 consultation.panda.org
The World Bank is the wrong model because its standards don’t incorporate human rights; its approach seeks to manage an acceptable level of adverse social/environmental impact rather than respect and protect human rights. 3/7
The Global Biodiversity Framework is the latest plan to save nature, which does need saving: at least one million species face extinction. 2/22 ipbes.net/news/Media-Rel…
The most publicized part of the plan is the 30x30 target, which calls for the expansion of land and marine conserved areas to protect 30 per cent of the planet by 2030 – more than doubling the extent of areas designated for conservation. 3/22 cbd.int/article/zero-d…
The latest rights-based climate decision was issued today by the German Constitutional Court. While it may seem less earth-shaking than Urgenda, it is a pathbreaking precedent for the rights of future generations. This (lengthy) thread explains. 1/20 bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pre…
I’m not an expert in German law (or German!), so I’m relying on the press release and on the unofficial English translation, courtesy of @SabinCenter. My goal is to explain the relevance of the decision to evolving environmental human rights law. 2/20 climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ne…
The Court began by stressing that the rights to life and integrity in the German Basic Law include protection against impairments of rights due to environmental pollution. This is consistent with international human rights law – eg Human Rights Committee General Comment 36. 3/20
In recent weeks, the UN has moved closer than ever before to recognizing the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment (R2E). This (lengthy) thread highlights some of the most important developments. 1/16 universal-rights.org/blog/thetimeis…
At the report launch, High Commissioner @mbachelet, UNEP head @andersen_inger, @UNICEF head Henrietta Fore, foreign ministers of Fiji, Costa Rica, Maldives & ambassadors of Germany and Switzerland all agreed #TheTimeIsNow to recognize the right. 3/16