Human rights and environmental rights in Europe

Question 1

What (according to Sands et al.) marks the beginning of modern human rights?

Answer 1

The UN charter. It does however not identify the human rights and fundamental freedoms, but provides that one of UN’s purpose it to promote and encourage ‘respect for human right and for fundamental freddoms for all without discrimination’

Question 2

What is the first int. instrument to elaborate detailed human rights standards that is applicable globally?

Answer 2

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Question 3

When was the relationship between the quality of the human environment and the enjoyment of basic rights first recognised?

Answer 3

In 1968, by the General Assembly (resolution)

Question 4

What are the practical consequences of recognising a link between human rights law and the protection of the environment?

Answer 4

• you can argue that you have a right that is being violated and demand that your state takes action (at least under ECtHR that delivers binding decisions
• recognizing that environmental protection is essencially an important aspect in order to fulfil human rights

Question 5

How is the development of connecting civil and political right to the environment any different then the connection between the environment and economic, social and cultural rights?

Answer 5

• environmental law has progressed conciderably in building upon existing civil and political rights and developing new obligations (ex. Aarhus convention on procedural rights: access to information, justice, participation in decison-making)
• economic, social and cultural rights have traditionally been less developed in practice + they look more at what level of environmental standards states need to uphold to be lawful (ex. access to drinking water that is free from contamination to fullfil the right to water)

Question 6

What are some examples of case law of the ECtHR on the connection between human rights and the environment?

Answer 6

• Lopez v- spain: mother and daugther had to leave their home because of fumes from a plant treating liquid and solid wastes, which was operating wouth a relevant licence and on municipal lans with support of a state subsidy, the court came to a breach of art. 8 because theplant did cause nuisance and serious health problems and that the state had not done a fair balance between the town’s economic wellbeing of having the plant and the applicant effective enjoyment of her right under art. 8
• Fadeyeva v. russia: she lived in an area that was affected by high levels of air and noise pollution from a steel plant company, the court found a violation of art. 8 because Russia had failed to regulate the environmental pollution from the steel plant which affected the quality of life at her home
• Öneryildiz v. Turkey: applicant lives in a slum quarter in Istanbul, close to a rubbish tip controlled by the Istanbul City Council, where there was a methan explotioin in 1993, relatives died, and the court found a violation of art. 2 because the authorities had failed to act (knew about the threat to inhabitants’ physical health before the explotion, were aware of a real and imminent risk for those living in the area)
• Budeyeva and others v. Russia: inadequate maintenance and failure to establish a warning system, in 199 warnings were recieved about increasing risks of mudslide, no funds given to repair and the mudslide happened, the state found to be in breach of art. 2 by not establishing legislative and administrative framework for effective protection fo life