Source: http://docplayer.net/309690-Human-rights-and-the-environment-what-specific-environmental-rights-have-been-recognized.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 22:26:42
Document Index: 198631389

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 14', 'Art. 1', 'art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'art. 9', 'art. 2', 'art. 14', 'art. 19', 'art. 15', 'art. 5', 'art. 23', 'art. 17', 'art. 6', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 9', 'art. 16', 'art. 3', 'art. 9', 'art. 13', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 10', 'art. 2', 'art.1', 'art. 1', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'art. 19', 'art. 19', 'art. 13', 'art. 9', 'art. 10']

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED?* - PDF
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED?*
Download "HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED?*"
1 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED?* DINAH SHELTON** As early as the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, efforts were made to explore and attempt to understand the interrelationship between human rights and environmental protection. Preparations for the Stockholm Conference coincided with the 1968 United Nations Teheran Conference on Human Rights, the first international conference organized by the United Nations, and marking the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Teheran Conference, overcoming a long-standing political debate that led to the adoption of two human rights covenants 1 rather than a single instrument, proclaimed that all human rights are interdependent and indivisible, opening the door for consideration of complex issues like environmental rights. The Teheran Conference also addressed concerns about economic development and human rights, proclaiming the interdependence of peace, development and human rights. 2 Resource depletion fit within this agenda and stimulated interest among developing states in the Stockholm Conference, which culminated in the Declaration recognizing environmental protection as a pre-condition for the enjoyment of many human rights. 3 Almost twenty years after the Stockholm Conference, in resolution 45/94, the UN General Assembly recalled the language of the Stockholm Declaration, stating that it: Recognizes that all individuals are entitled to live in an environment adequate for their health and well-being; [and] [c]alls upon Member * Revised draft, presented at the Conference on the Human Right to a Safe and Healthful Environment and the Responsibility Under International Law of Operators of Nuclear Facilities, Salzburg, October 20-23, ** Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. 1. The two Covenants divide human rights into categories of civil and political rights, on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter ICESC]. 2. International Conference on Human Rights, Apr. 22-May 13, 1968, Teheran, Iran, Proclamation of Teheran, pmbl., U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/ United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 5-16, 1972, Stockholm, Switz., Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, princ. 1, 11 I.L.M. 1416, Principle 1 of the Final Declaration reads: 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 the environment for present and future generations. 129
2 130 DENV. J. INT L L. & POL Y VOL. 35:1 States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to enhance their efforts towards ensuring a better and healthier environment. 4 There is a substantial practical reason for emphasizing international human rights law. For those whose well-being suffers due to environmental degradation, human rights law currently provides the only set of international legal procedures that can be invoked to seek redress for harm that is the consequence of an act or omission attributable to a state. The inclusion of inaction is significant because most environmental harm is due to non-state activity. Human rights law makes clear that while its primary objective is to protect individuals from abuse of power by state agents, including legislative representatives of the democratic majority, each state is also obliged to exercise due diligence to ensure that human rights are not violated by non-state actors. Due diligence requires measures to prevent abuses where possible, investigate violations that occur, prosecute the perpetrators as appropriate, and provide redress for victims. Thus, while no international human rights procedure allows a direct action against private enterprises or individuals who cause environmental harm, a state allowing such harm may be held accountable, as the following discussion indicates (litigation can be commenced in certain instances against non-state actors in national courts, for example under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C (2006)). I. INTRODUCTION: INTER-RELATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION From Stockholm to the present, most advances in developing environmental rights have occurred first, and almost exclusively, at the regional level. Four principal and complementary approaches have emerged to characterize the relationship between human rights and the environment: 1. International environmental laws incorporate and utilize those human rights guarantees deemed necessary or important to ensuring effective environmental protection. 2. Human rights law re-casts or interprets internationally-guaranteed human rights to include an environmental dimension when environmental degradation prevents full enjoyment of the guaranteed rights. 3. International environmental law and international human rights law elaborate a new substantive right to a safe and healthy environment. 4. International environmental law articulates ethical and legal duties of individuals that include environmental protection and human rights. The first approach selects from among the catalogue of human rights those rights most relevant to the aims of environmental protection, independent of the utility of environmental protection to the enjoyment of the full human rights catalogue. The approach thus emphasizes procedural rights such as freedom of 4. Need to Ensure a Healthy Environment for the Well-Being of Individuals, G.A. Res. 45/94, at paras. 1-2, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/94 (Dec. 14, 1990).
3 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 131 association, which permits the existence and activities of non-governmental environmental organizations, and the right of access to information concerning potential threats to the environment, which may be used for nature protection not necessarily related to human health and well-being. The potential for improving environmental protection through effective guarantees of procedural rights is solid, but the absence of complaint mechanisms or other recourse in international environmental agreements is a limiting aspect. 5 In contrast, human rights law seeks to ensure that environmental conditions do not deteriorate to the point where the substantive right to life, the right to health, the right to a family and private life, the right to culture, and other human rights are seriously impaired. As Judge Weeremantry of the International Court of Justice expressed it: The protection of the environment is a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments (emphasis added). 6 With a focus on the consequences of environmental harm to existing human rights, this approach serves to address most serious cases of actual or imminentlythreatened pollution. The primary advantage over the first approach is that existing human rights complaint procedures may be employed against those states whose level of environmental protection falls below that necessary to maintain any of the guaranteed human rights. Using existing human rights law has its own limits, however, because it cannot easily resolve threats to other species or to ecological processes if these are not directly and immediately linked to human well-being. The third possibility is to formulate a new human right to an environment that is not defined in purely anthropocentric terms, an environment that is safe not only for humans, but one that is ecologically-balanced and sustainable in the long term. Some international success has attended the various efforts undertaken in this direction, as discussed below. 7 The notion of a right to environment has met resistance from those who claim that the concept cannot be given content and who assert that no justiciable standards can be developed to enforce the right, because of the inherent variability of environmental conditions Johanna Rinceanu, Enforcement Mechanisms in International Environmental Law, 15 J. Envt l L. & Litig. 147, 149 (2000). 6. Gabçikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 92 (Sept. 27) (separate opinion of Judge Weermantry). 7. Far more success has been achieved among national constitutions. As discussed infra, more than 100 constitutions presently proclaim a right to an environment of a specified quality or impose duties on the government to protect the environment. See infra, note See, e.g. Gunther Handl, Human Rights and Protection of the Environment: A Mildly Revisionist View, in HUMAN RIGHTS, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade ed. 1992).
4 132 DENV. J. INT L L. & POL Y VOL. 35:1 Finally, the fourth approach prefers to address environmental protection as a matter of human responsibilities rather than rights. Draft declarations of human responsibilities such as the Earth Charter focus on duties toward the environment. 9 Many proponents of this approach posit ecological rights or rights of nature as a construct to balance human rights, attempting to introduce ecological limitations on human rights. The objective of these limitations is to implement an eco-centric ethic in a manner which imposes responsibilities and duties upon humankind to take intrinsic values and the interests of the natural community into account when exercising its human rights. 10 This paper provides a current assessment of environmental rights. It discusses how environmental law has encompassed procedural human rights and how human rights law recognizes the consequences of environmental degradation on the enjoyment of human rights. The merger of the two fields through elaborating a human right to the environment is then considered, as well as the special recognition given the rights of indigenous peoples. II. PROCEDURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS The lack of state support at the Stockholm Conference for pronouncing a substantive right to environment (proposed by the United States) led scholars 11 and activists during the following decade to consider human rights in a more instrumental fashion, to give content to environmental rights by identifying those rights whose enjoyment could be considered a prerequisite to effective environmental protection. They focused in particular on the procedural rights to environmental information, public participation in decision-making and remedies in the event of environmental harm. Various international instruments, particularly in Europe, built upon this concept to give content to Stockholm Principle I. 12 The texts adopted in connection with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ( UNCED ) contain few references to human 9. See The Earth Charter, princs. 4-5, Mar. 2000, available at (encouraging the protection and restoration of ecological systems and taking action to prevent future environmental harm). 10. Prudence Taylor, From Environmental to Ecological Human Rights: A New Dynamic in International Law?, 10 GEO. INT L ENVT L. L. REV. 309, 310 (1998). See also Catherine Redgwell, Life, the Universe and Everything: A Critique of Anthropocentric Rights, in HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 71 (Alan E. Boyle & M. Anderson eds. 1996) (stating that there has been an increasing recognition in international environmental law of the intrinsic value of animals and nature which goes beyond merely an incidental spill-over effect. ). 11. See, e.g., A.-Ch. Kiss, Peut-on définir le droit de l homme l environnement? 1976 REV. JURIDIQUE DE L ENVIRONNEMENT 15; Kiss, Le droit la conservation de l environnement, 2 REV. UNIV. DES DROITS DE L HOMME 445 (1990); Alexandre Kiss, An introductory note on a human right to environment, in ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: NEW CHALLENGES AND DIMENSIONS 199 (Edith Brown Weiss ed. 1992) (arguing that the right to environment is as concrete in its implications as any other right guaranteed to individuals and groups. ). 12. See United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Braz., Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, princ. 10, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Aug. 12, 1992) [hereinafter Rio Declaration]; Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 14, June 5, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818.
5 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 133 rights. Working Group III of the UNCED Preparatory Committee considered numerous proposals to include a right to a healthy environment in the Rio Declaration. In the final meetings prior to Rio, however, the participants failed to reach consensus on including such a right. The Rio Declaration states that human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. 13 The Rio Declaration accepts the importance of a role for the public, but consistent with its avoidance of rights language calls for including it on the ground of efficiency: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level (Principle 10). Principle 10 adds that: [E]ach individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. 14 Numerous environmental instruments now contain the three procedural rights, which are also guaranteed by human rights instruments. The various international efforts to promote procedural rights in environmental instruments produced a landmark agreement on June 25, 1998, when thirty-five states and the European Community signed a Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. 15 The Convention is the first environmental treaty to incorporate and strengthen the language of Principle 1. The Preamble expressly states that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. 16 The following paragraph adds that to be able to assert the right and observe the duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters. 17 These provisions are repeated in Art. 1 where states parties agree to guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice. 18 The Convention acknowledges its broader 13. Rio Declaration, supra note 12, at princ Id. at princ Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S. 447 [hereinafter Convention on Access to Information]. The Convention was sponsored by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and is open for signature by the 55 members of the UNECE, which includes all of Europe as well as the United States, Canada, and states of the former Soviet Union. States having consultative status with the UNECE may also participate. 16. Id. at pmbl. 17. Id. at pmbl. 18. Id. at art. 1.
6 134 DENV. J. INT L L. & POL Y VOL. 35:1 implications, expressing a conviction that its implementation will contribute to strengthening democracy in the region of the UNECE. 19 A. The Right to Environmental Information A right to information can mean, narrowly, freedom to seek information, or, more broadly, a right to access to information, or even a right to receive it. Corresponding duties of the state can be limited to abstention from interfering with public efforts to obtain information from the state or from private entities, or expanded to require the state to obtain and disseminate all relevant information concerning both public and private projects that might affect the environment. If the government duty is limited to abstention from interfering with the ability of individuals or associations to seek information from those willing to share it then little may actually be obtained. A governmental obligation to release information about its own projects can increase public knowledge, but fails to provide access to the numerous private-sector activities that can affect the environment. Information about the latter may be obtained by the government through licensing or environmental impact requirements. Imposing upon the state a duty to disseminate this information in addition to details of its own projects provides the public with the broadest basis for informed decision-making. Informational rights are widely found in environmental treaties, in weak and strong versions. 20 The Framework Convention on Climate Change, Art. 6, provides that its parties shall [p]romote and facilitate at the national and, as appropriate, sub-regional and regional levels, and in accordance with national laws and regulations, and within their respective capacities public access to information [and] public participation. 21 The Convention on Biological Diversity similarly does not oblige states parties to provide information, but Article 14 provides that each contracting party, as far as possible and as 19. Id. at pmbl. 20. See e.g., Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, art. 9, Sept. 22, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 1069; Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, arts , June 21, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1228; North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, art. 2(1)(a), Sept. 14, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1480; International Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, arts. 10(2)(e), 13(1)(b), 14(2), 19, 25, June 17, 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1328; Convention on Cooperation and Sustainable Use of the Danube River, art. 14, June 29, 1994, available at [hereinafter Danube Convention]; Energy Charter Treaty, arts. 19(1)(1), 20, Dec. 17, 1994; 33 I.L.M. 360; Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, art. 19, June 10, 1995, 1999 O.J. (L 322) 3; Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, art. 15(2), Sept. 10, 1998, available at Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, art. 5(i), June 17, 1999, available at [hereinafter Transboundary Watercourses Convention]; Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 23, Jan. 29, 2000, 39 I.L.M. 1027; International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, art. 17, Nov. 3, 2001, available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/it/itpgre.pdf. 21. Framework Convention on Climate Change, art. 6, May 9, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 849.
7 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 135 appropriate, shall introduce appropriate environmental impact assessment procedures and where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures. 22 Broader guarantees of public information are found in regional agreements, including the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Art. 16), the 1992 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Art. 3(8)), and the 1992 Paris Convention on the North-East Atlantic (Art. 9). 23 The last mentioned requires the contracting parties to ensure that their competent authorities are required to make available relevant information to any natural or legal person, in response to any reasonable request, without the person having to prove an interest, without unreasonable charges and within two months of the request. Other treaties require states parties to inform the public of specific environmental hazards. The International Atomic Energy Agency Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management 24 is based to a large extent on the principles contained in the IAEA document The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management. 25 The Preamble of the treaty recognizes the importance of informing the public on issues regarding the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. 26 This is reinforced in Arts. 6 and 13, on siting of proposed facilities, which require each state party to take the appropriate steps to ensure that procedures are established and implemented to make information available to members of the public on the safety of any proposed spent fuel management facility or radioactive waste management facility. 27 Regionally, the European Community generally guarantees the right of the individual to be informed about the environmental compatibility of products, manufacturing processes and their effects on the environment, and industrial installations. 28 Two general directives address rights of information. First, Council Directive 85/337 Concerning the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and 22. Convention on Biological Diversity, supra note 12, at art Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, art. 16, Mar. 17, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 1312; Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, art. 3(8), Feb. 25, 1991, 30 I.L.M. 800 [hereinafter Environmental IA Convention]; Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, art. 9, Sept. 22, 1992, 32 I.L.M Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Sept. 5, 1997, 36 I.L.M Id. at intro. 26. Id. at pmbl. 27. Id. at arts. 6, See, e.g. Council Directive 76/160, pmbl, art. 13, 1976 O.J. (L 31) 1 (stating that "public interest in the environment and in the improvement of its quality is increasing the public should therefore receive objective information on the quality of bathing water.") Article 13 requires Member States to submit regularly to the Commission a comprehensive report to the Commission on the bathing water and most significant characteristics thereof." The Commission publishes the information "after prior consent has been obtained from the Member State concerned." However, the consent may limit the information provided, undermining its "objective" nature.
8 136 DENV. J. INT L L. & POL Y VOL. 35:1 Private Projects on the Environment 29 makes explicit the duty to provide information in connection with mandatory environmental assessment projects. Second, the EC adopted in 1990 a Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment, 30 replaced in January as a consequence of the adoption of the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. 32 The Community also requires that information be provided to those who may be particularly at risk from certain activities or products. For example, framework directive 89/ on the protection of workers against risks at the workplace, calls for employee information and consultation. Other directives applicable to specific industries, such as mining and fishing or to specific hazards, such as asbestos, 34 require information be given to workers about the risks they face. Other organizations have issued non-binding declarations proclaiming a right to environmental information. The World Health Organization s European Charter on the Environment and Health specifies that every individual is entitled to information and consultation on the state of the environment. 35 The states participating in the OSCE have confirmed the right of individuals, groups, and organizations to obtain, publish and distribute information on environmental issues. 36 The Bangkok Declaration, adopted October 16, 1990, affirms similar rights in Asia and the Pacific 37 while the Arab Declaration on Environment and Development and Future Perspectives of September 1991 speaks of the right of individuals and non-governmental organizations to acquire information about environmental issues relevant to them. 38 Human rights texts generally contain a right to freedom of information or a corresponding state duty to inform. The right to information is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 19(2)), the Inter-American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Art. 10), the American Convention on Human Rights 29 Council Directive 85/337, art. 2, 1985 O.J. (L 175) 40 (EC). 30 Council Directive 90/313, 1990 O.J. (L 158) 56 (EC). 31 Council Directive 2003/4, 2003 O.J. (L 41) Convention On Access To Information, supra note Council Directive 89/391, art.1, 1989 O.J. ( L 183) See Council Directive 83/477, arts. 3-4, 1983 O.J. (L 263) 25 (EC). 35 European Charter on Environment and Health, art. 1, Dec 7-8, 1989, available at 36 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, On Conclusions and Recommendations of the Meeting on the Protection of the Environment of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Sofia, Bulg., October-November, 1989, available at 37 Dinah Shelton & Alexandre Kiss, Judicial Handbook on Environmental Law (United Nations Env t Programme 2005) (noting that para. 27 affirms the right of individuals and non-governmental organizations to be informed of environmental problems relevant to them, to have the necessary access to information, and to participate in the formulation and implementation of decisions likely to affect their environment. ). 38 Id. at 29.
9 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 137 (Art. 13), and the African Charter on the Rights and Duties of Peoples (Art. 9). 39 European states are generally bound by Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the freedom to receive information. 40 In the case of Leander v. Sweden, the applicant alleged violation of Art. 10 after he was refused access to a file that was used to deny him employment. The Court unanimously stated: [T]he right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual. 41 The Court has applied its restrictive approach to Art. 10 in environmental cases. 42 In Anna Maria Guerra and 39 Others against Italy 43 the applicants complained about the chemical factory ENICHEM Agricoltura, situated near the town of Manfredonia; specifically, pollution and the risk of major accidents at the plant; and the absence of regulation by the public authorities. Invoking Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants asserted the government s failure to inform the public of the risks and the measures to be taken in case of a major accident, prescribed by the domestic law transposing the EC Seveso directive. 44 The European Commission on Human Rights admitted the complaint insofar as it alleged a violation of the right to information. It did not accept the claim of pollution damage. The Commission found that the government had classified the factory as a high risk facility in applying the criteria established by the directive and Italian law and that there had been accidents at the factory. By a large majority, the Commission concluded that Art. 10 imposes on states an obligation not only to disclose to the public available information on the 39 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, art. 19, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1 st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948) [hereinafter Universal Declaration]; ICCPR, supra note 1, at art. 19; American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, art. XVII, May 2, 1948, AG/RES (XXVIII-O/98) [hereinafter American Declaration]; American Convention on Human Rights art. 13, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 [hereinafter American Convention]; African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, art. 9, June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 58 [hereinafter African Charter]. 40 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 10, Sept. 3, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S Leander v. Sweden, App. No, 9248/81, 9 Eur. H.R. Rep. 433, para. 74 (1987). See also Gaskin v. United Kingdom, 160 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser.a) at para. 51 (1989) (holding that the government did not breach the Convention in failing to allow access to a personal file of former foster child). 42 See Stefan Weber, Environmental Information and the European Convention on Human Rights, 12 HUM. RTS. L.J. 177 (1991). Contrast the views of the former Commission which found that the right to receive information envisages not only access to general sources of information, which may not be restricted by state authorities, but also the right to receive information not generally accessible that is of particular importance to the individual. X v. Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 8383/78, 17 Dec. & Rep. 227, (1980). 43 Guerra v. Italy, App. No /89, 26 Eur. H.R. Rep. 357 at para. 61 (1998). 44 Id. at para. 53.
Report of the Joint OHCHR-UNEP Meeting of Experts on Human Rights and the Environment
Report of the Joint OHCHR-UNEP Meeting of Experts on Human Rights and the Environment 14-15 January 2002 Chair: Judge Thomas Mensah Joint Rapporteurs: Professor Philippe Sands and Ms. Adriana Fabra CONTENTS