What does human rights law have to say about the environment? On the surface, the answer may seem to be—not much. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, and the two International Covenants, both adopted in 1966, do not include a right to a healthy environment. International environmental law has developed, for the most part, along a different track than human rights law.
But the failure to include a right to a healthy environment in the seminal human rights instruments is due to timing, not substance. The modern environmental movement began in the late 1960s, just too late to be reflected in the foundational human rights treaties. It is nevertheless clear that human rights and environmental protection are dependent upon one another. Our ability to enjoy our rights to life and health, as well as a host of other rights, depends on our living in an environment that is healthy and sustainable. The international community recognized this connection in its very first major environmental conference, in Stockholm in 1972, which proclaimed that the natural environment is “essential” to the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itself.
The exercise of human rights helps to protect the environment, which in turn enables the full enjoyment of human rights. In recent years, it has become equally clear that the converse is also true: the exercise of human rights is necessary, or at the very least highly important to, the enjoyment of a healthy environment. When the people who may be affected by proposed policies and activities can freely participate in the environmental decision-making process, their societies are much more likely to have strong environmental protections. In this way, human rights and environmental protection can form a virtuous circle: the exercise of human rights helps to protect the environment, which in turn enables the full enjoyment of human rights.
