Human Rights and Climate Change

Mcinerney-Lankford, Siobhán; Darrow, Mac; Rajamani, Lavanya

doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-8720-7

Cited by 73 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Before using Do No Harm as an analytical framework in the context of the Rohingya refugee crisis, it is logical to raise a question: “Do no harm to what or whom?” (McInerney-Lankford et al 2011 , p. 46) . In this paper, the author focuses on the unintentional impacts of humanitarian aid on poorer hosts and refugee-hosting areas’ overall capacity to respond to the crisis.…”

Section: Do No Harm As An Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Do No Harm in refugee humanitarian aid: the case of the Rohingya humanitarian response

Khaled

2021

Int J Humanitarian Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article broadly examines how humanitarian aid for Rohingya refugees inadvertently harmed poorer hosts and adversely affected local capacities for peace. The article also discusses possible ways of easing tension and improving social cohesion in the refugee-hosting areas, while also highlighting how policy- and mandate-related constraints hinder a humanitarian response anchored in the "Do No Harm" principle. Finally, the article concludes with the argument that the humanitarian agencies should not just limit themselves to identifying the unintended consequences and lapses in the intervention. Instead, the Do No Harm principle should lead humanitarian aid agencies to make an active effort to accept responsibility for the harm while taking all necessary steps to mitigate or avoid harming in future interventions.

show abstract

Section: Do No Harm As An Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Do No Harm in refugee humanitarian aid: the case of the Rohingya humanitarian response

Khaled

2021

Int J Humanitarian Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…States are ipso jure instructed to adopt mitigation and adaptation policies irrespective of what others do or refrain from doing; their responsibility, even if shared, is not joint and several, since States' climate-related human rights obligations are not conditioned on what other States do. 83 If climate change is caused upstream by a diffuse and intertwined set of actors, this group can be broken down to identify States' individual obligations, causal links and their liability in case of non-compliance. 84 With regard to adaptation measures specifically, States' (ex ante) responsibility is inherently individual and detached from their past, current or future GHG emissions.…”

Section: Victimhood and Causal Linkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change before the European and Inter‐American Courts of Human Rights: Comparing possible avenues before human rights bodies

Rocha

Sampaio²

2023

Rev Euro Comp Intl Enviro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the light of an increasing trend of climate change-related litigation before human rights bodies, this article assesses and compares the possible outcomes of cases submitted before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). First, it assesses what rights can be used in a climate change-related case. Second, it analyses the collective causation arguments that may be raised. Third, it assesses the conditions of victimhood hand-in-hand with the causal link between greenhouse gas emissions and the harm suffered. Third, it considers States' jurisdiction under human rights treaties to assess if climate change-related obligations are also extraterritorial. Finally, it assesses the possible ruling of these courts in climate change-related cases. Our main finding is that it is likely that the ECtHR and the IACtHR will follow a similar reasoning and that it is possible that both courts will end up declaring a human rights violation related to States' failure to adopt adaptation policies (and, to a lesser extent, mitigation policies also). However, it may be more difficult to set out what remedies are owed to the applicants. | INTRODUCTIONThe massive impact of human-induced climate change is challenging the enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life and physical integrity, to health, of access to food and water, to one's home and family life or to a healthy environment. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council has repeatedly stated that 'climate change poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights', 1 but mitigation and adaptation policies raise similar concerns. 2 That the enjoyment of human rights is challenged by climate change does not mean that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) will enforce the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other treaties adopted under its aegis, but these norms are relevant for both courts when and to the extent that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the resulting disruption in the climate system adversely affects the enjoyment of human rights. When climate-related cases are brought before the ECtHR or the IACtHR, both courts may map States' obligations and 1 Human Rights Council 'Resolution 7/23, Human Rights and Climate Change' UN Doc A/HRC/7/78 (14 July 2008).

show abstract

“…For example, most countries have signed international human rights treaties, which create legal obligations. In principle, affected individuals and communities can sue in their own country’s courts to seek enforcement of these rights or enactment of new domestic laws and regulations (McInerney-Lankford et al 2013 ). For example, in response to a suit by an NGO, a Dutch court required its national government to reduce emissions in order to reduce environmental threats to its citizens (Setzer and Vanhala 2019 ).…”

Section: Leverage Points For Operationalizing Earth Stewardshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth stewardship: Shaping a sustainable future through interacting policy and norm shifts

Chapin

Weber

Bennett

et al. 2022

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformation toward a sustainable future requires an earth stewardship approach to shift society from its current goal of increasing material wealth to a vision of sustaining built, natural, human, and social capital—equitably distributed across society, within and among nations. Widespread concern about earth’s current trajectory and support for actions that would foster more sustainable pathways suggests potential social tipping points in public demand for an earth stewardship vision. Here, we draw on empirical studies and theory to show that movement toward a stewardship vision can be facilitated by changes in either policy incentives or social norms. Our novel contribution is to point out that both norms and incentives must change and can do so interactively. This can be facilitated through leverage points and complementarities across policy areas, based on values, system design, and agency. Potential catalysts include novel democratic institutions and engagement of non-governmental actors, such as businesses, civic leaders, and social movements as agents for redistribution of power. Because no single intervention will transform the world, a key challenge is to align actions to be synergistic, persistent, and scalable.

show abstract

Human Rights and Climate Change

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

Do No Harm in refugee humanitarian aid: the case of the Rohingya humanitarian response

Do No Harm in refugee humanitarian aid: the case of the Rohingya humanitarian response

Climate change before the European and Inter‐American Courts of Human Rights: Comparing possible avenues before human rights bodies

Earth stewardship: Shaping a sustainable future through interacting policy and norm shifts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About