Human Rights at Home Blog

Event 2/19: Online program with the UN Office of the Victims' Rights Advocates

On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, at 12:00 pm ET, the ABA International Human Rights Committee will host a Zoom presentation from the United Nations Office of the Victims' Rights Advocate (OVRA). The UN OVRA works to ensure that the rights and dignity of victims/survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel are at the forefront of the UN's prevention and response efforts.

The presentation will be titled “Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse: The Work of the Office of the Victims' Rights Advocate,” and will feature UN Victims’ Rights Advocate Najla Nassif Palma as speaker.

The Zoom for the presentation can be accessed here.

U.S. Human Rights Experts, Current and Former Members of UN Bodies Issue Statement on “The Trump Administration’s Attacks on International Law and Institutions”

On February 10, 2025, sixteen current and former U.S. members of UN human rights bodies issued a statement on “The Trump Administration’s Attacks on International Law and Institutions.” This statement, signed by American scholars who have served on UN human rights bodies for decades, condemns the current Presidential Administration’s assault on U.S. civil rights commitments and terror struck among immigrant communities, as well as its attacks on public access to information and First Amendment rights. The statement s urges all lawmakers, Republican and Democratic, to counter the administration’s betrayal of human rights values, and for state and local leaders to ensure that their residents have protection against the ongoing and threatened abuses of the administration.

The full statement may be read here.

Event 2/12: Mary Robinson to speak at FSU Law

On Wednesday, February 12, 2025, at 4:00 pm ET, Florida State University College of Law will host and livestream its D’Alemberte & Palmer Lecture in International Human Rights on “The Rule of Law in International Human Rights.” The talk will feature former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson as speaker.

This lecture will explore the recent diminishing civic participation, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression; share insights on what has contributed to this erosion of the rule of law; and propose solutions for restoring justice, accountability, and respect for human rights both nationally and globally. Drawing on her vast experience as a former head of state, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and advocate for climate justice, Robinson will discuss the vital role of leaders in strengthening governance systems that promote peace, sustainability, and human rights.

Please see here for more information, and RSVP for the event here.

Event 2/5: Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and International Law

On Wednesday February 5, 2025, from 9:00am-10:30am ET ASIL is holding an online event to engage with experts on the legal responses shaping the global effort to address sea level rise and its consequences. The program will feature panelists from the International Law Commission: Nilufer Oral, Patrícia Galvão Teles, Juan José Ruda Santolaria, and Bimal N. Patel.

The webinar will delve into the implications of sea level rise under international legal frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and examine how emerging jurisprudence addresses these issues. Discussions will highlight recent legal initiatives, such as the advisory opinion delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), as well as the ongoing advisory opinions in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). These initiatives will underscore the differentiated impacts of climate change and the evolving role of international law in addressing territorial loss, population displacement, and economic repercussions.

More information and registration for this online event is available here.

Questioning The Morality of the “World’s Most Moral Army”

Preface by Prof. Margaret Drew:  More on the universal suffering of women and children during war. While an Israeli/Hamas ceasefire takes effect on Sunday, much damage has been done to women and children through not just physical assaults but through the dismissiveness and mockery of their suffering. Several conventions are implicated including the Convention Against Torture, CERD and CEDAW.  

By Yasmin Khan, Student in the Human Rights at Home Clinic at the University of Massachusetts

When speaking about his country’s military and its operations, Benjamin Netanyahu has continuously relied on one anecdote to refer to it: the most moral army in the world. But after witnessing an ongoing international conflict and genocide for over a year now, it is difficult to argue that morality exists among the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Force. Not only have thousands died as a result of the conflict (More than 43,000 people killed in Palestine and more than 3,000 people killed in Lebanon), but entire cities and homes have been destroyed and ransacked by members of the IDF.

Out of these atrocities, a loathsome trend among IDF soldiers has also developed; rifling through the belongings and clothing of women that used to live in the homes and photographing themselves either wearing the clothes or using them in suggestive ways. Videos on social media show soldiers displaying lingerie and inappropriately displaying it on themselves or others have been circulating since the conflict began. The content is being created and published by the soldiers themselves, showing they have no remorse over their actions in an attempt to continuously dehumanize Palestinians. It is unclear if military officials have investigated or if any of the soldiers have even been disciplined for their actions.

The ongoing conflict is not only one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, but it has also been continuously documented as it continues. The human rights violations committed by the IDF and the humiliation of the Palestinian people have shown morality does not exist within the Israeli military and government.

While I applaud the success of finally reaching an agreement between the parties involved in the conflict, I cannot help but feel nervous and unsure about the future. I am worried that a lot of attention will no longer be on the Palestinian people after this agreement which will allow Israel to continue committing the human rights abuses and ongoing genocide. My hope is that all terms of the ceasefire agreement are upheld and the attention to the crisis in Palestine is not forgotten afterwards.

 

January-February 2025 Deadlines: Calls for Inputs by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in January-February 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Special Rapporteur on the right to food - Call for inputs to inform a thematic report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of a rights-based approach to food on the national and global scales. Deadline January 2, 2025. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the right to health – Call for inputs to inform a thematic report health and care workers as key protectors of the right to health. Deadline January 3, 2025. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression – Call for inputs informing a forthcoming report on “Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age,” relating to digital technology’s effects on access to information and disinformation. Deadline January 16, 2025. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls – Call for inputs to inform an addendum to clarify the terms and approaches to the concept of consent and the use of consent in international human rights law and national legislation. Deadline January 30, 2025. Read more.

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Call for inputs to inform the preparation of a study on Indigenous Peoples right to data, including data collection and disaggregation. Deadline January 31, 2025. Read more.

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Call for inputs to inform a report on the right of Indigenous Peoples to their traditional economies. Deadline January 31, 2025. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform an update to the technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the elimination of preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. Deadline February 13, 2025. Read more.

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Call for written submissions for a general discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities to political and public life to political and public life pursuant to article 29 of the Convention. Deadline February 15, 2025. Read more.

Multiple Mechanisms – Call for inputs to inform the drafting of the EMRTD thematic study on “Climate Justice, Sustainability, and the Right to Development.” Deadline February 20, 2025. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on climate change – Call for inputs to inform a thematic report on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change and a just transition away from fossil fuels. Deadline February 28, 2025. Read more.

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.

For a Greener Future - Nuclear Power, Environmental Impact, and Economic Feasibility

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the tenth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here. The sixth post is here. The seventh post is here. The eighth post is here. The ninth post is here.

By Zachary Limon, 2L at UIC Law

The search for the future of clean energy has brought government and industry leaders together to discuss implementing their candidate, nuclear power. On September 19-20th, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) hosted the Roadmaps to New Nuclear 2024 in Sweden to reaffirm and bolster the commitment made during the 28^th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to review the progress made from the previous year. In 2023, 20 member states pledged to triple global production of nuclear energy by 2050 to ensure safe operation of nuclear facilities, provide reliable energy, decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors, and provide job security while driving economic growth.

This joint effort between public and private entities was spurred by the rising global concern for climate change and statistical evidence that fossil fuel costs do not include the effects on humans or the environment. Operating under the UN legal framework, each member state must implement policies in line with the right to right to a healthy environment, rights of the child, rights of indigenous people and right to a Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Each of these rights are intertwined due to climate change and long-term effects on health are both related to fossil fuels. For the right to a healthy environment, the effects of climate change have been felt disproportionately by groups that have been racially discriminated against. These historical patterns of racism pose a concern for the UN’s International Convention to End Racial Discrimination, a legally binding treaty in the U.S. Therefore, analyzing the economic impact of such a large-scale transition must include the cost on human and environmental health in these member states.

Natural gas and brown coal cannot guarantee staying in the black because, considering the cost to human and environmental health, nuclear energy is safer and profitable. The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release presents a multi-impact economic valuation framework (SCAR) to better ascertain the cost of carbon by evaluating all carbon-based emissions. SCAR considers trends of population growth and the correlations between temperature changes and malnutrition in poor socio-economic conditions due to failing agriculture.  Our World in Data shows that nuclear power results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal, 99.8% fewer deaths than coal, 99.7% fewer deaths than oil, and 97.6% fewer deaths than gas. Both articles stress that the ‘true cost’ of carbon emissions may be higher due to the unrealized long-term impacts on health and the environment. Maintenance and continued use of nuclear power plants relative to coal and oil are considerably less expensive, it is nuclear plant’s initial cost that presents one of the largest economic challenges. The NEA also has tortfeasor liability based on the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, effectively tracing liability for injury unlike carbon emissions that cannot accurately gauge the full damages caused.

The mass production of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) offers flexible solutions to energy needs. In response, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, in conjunction with the NEA and other international nuclear organizations,  provided New Recommendations on Safety of SMRs from the SMR Regulator’s Forum to maintain current level of safety standards. The IAEA outlines new safety measures unique to SMRs, such new licensing framework, as maintenance of one or more independent SMRs at a time, and new risk considerations given the compact design on the lifecycle of a nuclear reactor. Flexible use of SMRs in conjunction with other renewables can offer economic choices to communities transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. Construction of conventional reactors require a much higher initial cost, stalling an economic transition to cleaner energy over time. In anticipation on reliance of SMRs, Also, to maintain long-term operation (LTO), the NEA’s Working Group on Integrity and Ageing of Components and Structures (WGIAGE) offers LTO plant and decarbonization strategies to increase the lifecycle of the plant as a whole.

Ensuring the progression of this legal framework can prevent contamination near nuclear power plants. Studies have found quantities of tritium near plants in U.S. and China. Tritium is “super-heavy” water used in nuclear fission and is a known carcinogen. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) claimed the observed releases were localized to plants offering no threat to public health, even though groundwater contamination does not necessarily remain localized.  In China, a study at the Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant shows contamination of drinking water and correlated with increase of cancer in workers. This evidence, while alarming, should urge countries to join the progress underway by the UN agencies that ensure internationally recognized rights are respected and a legal framework that holds tortfeasors accountable.

Accountability for Climate Change: Leveraging Human Rights Frameworks to Address Global Inequities Caused by Developed Countries

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the ninth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here. The sixth post is here. The seventh post is here. The eighth post is here.

By Kamryn Shives, 3L at UIC Law

The impact of climate change is disproportionately felt by developing countries who have little control over its contributing factors. Developed countries' continued reliance on fossil fuels pose a significant threat to the rest of the world's ability to adapt to the loss and damages caused by climate change. A recent analytical study (“The Analytical Study”) published by the UN Secretary General and the High Commissioner on UN Human Rights, explored the link between human rights and loss and damage from climate change. The Analytical Study posed ways to hold developed countries accountable for their contribution to climate change and its effect on developing countries, including adopting equity-based approaches to ensure effective remedies. It further advocates for integrating a human rights framework that acknowledges the right to a healthy environment and the impacts of climate change, highlighting the need for equity-based approaches -particularly the harm disproportionately affecting developing countries.

It was observed that two-thirds of all greenhouse-gas emissions are the result of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustions from the industrial process. Greenhouse gas emissions have led to extreme climate change causing extreme weather in developing countries, displacement of people, and the unavailability of clean drinking water and resources. The Analytical Study raised concerns about fossil fuel use and air pollution caused by the world’s most industrialized countries, urging them to implement remedies for these impacts. It highlighted the need for a legal and moral framework because of developed countries’ tendency to turn a blind eye and mislead the public about their knowledge of climate change.  

The Analytical Study identified the need for developed countries’ governments to practice financial responsibility to help prepare for and lessen climate impacts. Current provisions for climate financing by developed countries fall short of the projected needs for mitigation and adaptation. The Secretary General suggests that developed countries should tax private corporations for their use of fossil fuels with the goal of eventually weaning out the use of fossil fuels all together. Financial responsibility would both promote more sustainable activities within developed countries while compensating those outside of its jurisdiction who no longer have access to essential resources like clean drinking water. The Analytical Study encourages governments to draw from international treaties as a guide to state accountability on human rights issues. Goverments who sign on to these treaties have a duty to comply with the responsibilities outlined therein.

The Analytical study concludes that international human rights norms, standards, considerations, and obligations should guide how countries address the loss and damage associated with climate change. This framework grounds actions in the human rights principles of substantive equality and non-discrimination, participation and empowerment, accountability and access to justice, transparency and the rule of law. For example, the right to an effective remedy is a fundamental principle of international human rights law. Governments can gain examples from different international instruments to review the mechanisms providing remedies for loss and damage. Meanwhile advocates can use international human rights law to ensure governments understand their obligations under international law and enforce the principles therein.

The Analytical Study advocates for a human rights and equity-based approach to address the increased scale and frequency of loss and damage caused by climate change, and the need to hold developed countries accountable for their failure to regulate the emissions of businesses under their jurisdiction. Using international human rights principles and drawing on frameworks implemented by international human rights treaties is an effective way to respond to climate change. The recommendations in the Analytical Study demonstrate how international law can help achieve these goals and address the inaction of developed countries who turn a blind eye to the issue. To advance climate justice, governments must integrate human rights in laws and policies, and ensure responses consider the affected persons.

The Cost of Progress: The Tension Between Economic Gain and Indigenous Survival

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the eighth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here. The sixth post is here. The seventh post is here.

By Elizabeth Arreola & Mariah Khan, 2Ls at UIC Law

Ecuador’s economic reliance on oil drilling has devastated critical areas of the Amazon rainforest polluting the environment. Over five decades of oil extraction have left more than 1,100 contaminated sites, causing water pollution, deforestation, and increased risk of cancer. In 2023, Ecuadorians voted in the Yasuní National Park Oil Referendum to dismantle oil drilling operations threatening the Amazon rainforest and the Indigenous communities living there. The Ecuadorian government has hesitated to comply with the referendum results, due to a conflict with the country's economic interests. This undermines democracy, destroys vital ecosystems, and violates the fundamental rights of Indigenous communities.

Located at the crossroads of the Amazon, Andes, and the equator, Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park is a destination for extractive industries. With one-third of the nation’s revenue deriving from oil extractions, the region’s plants, animals, and people face threats of displacement and extinction. The way of life of the Tagaeri and Teromenane communities, Ecuador’s last Indigenous groups living in voluntary isolation, are compromised by extractive practices. The Park is also the ancestral homeland of the Waorani people, another Indigenous group dependent on the land. The forest is a vital source of spiritual connection and cultural identity for indigenous peoples, who have lived in harmony with the land  for generations, relying on it for food, water, and well-being.

In 2007, the Ecuadorian government launched the Yasuní-ITT initiative, aiming to leave over 900 million barrels of oil in indigenous territories in exchange for $3.6 billion in international funding. The initiative fell short and Ecuador abandoned the plan in 2016, allowing oil extraction to begin in the rainforest. Over the years, approximately 18.5 billion gallons of toxic waste have been dumped by Chevron-Texaco oil company contaminating two million acres of rainforest.

Ecuadorians nationwide have disapproved of the practice since the oil drilling commenced. One Waorani activist, Nemonte Nenquino, sends a message to the western world: “I would like modern people to know where oil comes from. It comes from the Amazon. [For you] to have a good life in the city… It is harming our water, it pollutes our water, our animals, our land.” Nenquino highlights the devastating impact of oil extraction on indigenous communities in the Amazon.

Finally, in 2023, after much activism and protest, Ecuador's Constitutional Court, rendered Opinion No. 6-22-CP/23 marking a pivotal moment in the struggle between conservation efforts and oil extraction. The Court upheld the referendum on banning oil drilling in Ecuador’s ITT block and set a framework to end operations. The Court imposed a deadline on the Ecuadorian Government to halt work and remediate the affected areas. This shifted the power from the government, empowering Ecuadorians to vote on changes that would have lasting environmental and human rights impacts. The results from the referendum overwhelmingly demonstrated a priority to preserve life in the Yasuní by preventing 410 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses from being released into the atmosphere. While drilling expansion has ceased, there are concerns over whether current President Daniel Noboa will comply. He suggested utilizing oil drilling to fund against growing violence caused by cartels, however, advocates argue Noboa is taking advantage of the crisis to prolong drilling.

Following his visit in August 2023, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights Olivier De Schutter published a report on his official visit to Ecuador. This report highlighted the impact of extractive industries on Indigenous communities, who reported how extraction was polluting or restricting their access to essential resources for sustenance and agriculture. Shortly after the report was released, Ecuador announced plans to phase out oil extraction in the ITT region by 2029 and with two days before the deadline, began dismantling the first of 247 oil wells in the region. The dismantling is projected to cost up to $1.3 billion, a significant financial burden as Ecuador transitions away from oil production. International awareness similar to the Special Rapporteur’s report will be critical in demanding Ecuador respect both the law and the democratic choices of its citizens.

The decision issued by the Court and the Ecuadorian people goes far beyond Yasuní National Park. This is a historic moment as a constitutional court upheld the ability to consider and support the public initiative in favor of protecting nature. Special Rapporteur De Shutter’s report also raised awareness of this issue, which was followed up by Ecuador’s government announcing a phase out of oil extraction in Ecuador. This sets a global precedent for movements worldwide fighting to hold governments accountable for their commitment to the environment, despite economic pressures. This approach could be helpful to increase advocacy efforts in the United States regarding environmental justice, particularly around water rights and indigenous peoples’ rights to land. Environmental and indigenous rights movements across the globe can learn from the actions taken to protect the future of Yasuní, its ecosystems, and its indigenous communities.

Ignoring Nuclear Energy’s Environmental Impact

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the seventh post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here. The sixth post is here.

By Kate Y. McHugh, 3L at UIC Law

Today, we “are losing” in the climate change race, but we can still win. Under the 2030 Agenda, the UN has produced Sustainable Development Goals, one of which is to “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” One area of significant development is utilizing renewable energy sources, including nuclear energy.

To reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released by fossil fuels, nuclear energy has been held as THE solution to focus on developing and using. However, nuclear energy is not a silver bullet. It has many conditions stirring heave debated. Advocates of nuclear energy often frame their arguments using the relative privation fallacy: the idea that because other forms of renewable energy are less reliable, nuclear energy is the “best” option.

Nuclear energy has significant benefits, including the ability to constantly provide reliable and stable energy independent of weather conditions. Historically, nuclear energy has prevented over 60 billion tons of GHG and carbon emissions between 1970 to 2015. However, significant impacts result from nuclear energy that are often ignored following the relative privation fallacy.

The relative privation fallacy, sometimes the “appeal to worse problems” or “comparative logic,” is a logical error that dismisses or minimizes an issue by comparing it to a more severe problem. This fallacy manifests when advocates compare nuclear energy to other renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power. For example, Although thousands of people died in relation to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, no one died of radiation poisoning, and statistically, the production of hydroelectric power kills more people than nuclear energy. Similarly, the production of solar energy causes fewer deaths than nuclear energy,

This argument and thinking shifts the focus away from the specific environmental impacts and reframes the alternatives as “less than” or concludes that the negative impacts are irrelevant on the global scale. However, blatantly ignoring or disregarding the environmental impacts undermines the idea of combating climate change.

While generating nuclear energy itself produces no GHG emissions, it is not environmentally neutral. The production of nuclear energy requires mining for uranium and a large water resource, both resulting in negative environmental impacts.

Nuclear energy production requires uranium, a naturally occurring radioactive element that is relatively common in the earth’s crust. However, obtaining uranium requires extracting it from the earth through mining. There are various ways to mine uranium, but they all require drilling into the ground or water resources. The energy used to mine uranium causes the highest amount of emissions when producing nuclear energy.

In addition to producing emissions, mining for uranium creates waste and can contaminate water sources miles away for hundreds of years. Besides the machine used to drill, waste is created by damaging and removing rocks from their natural location. Process water from mining mills contains traces of radium and other undesirable metals for biological systems. Water contamination occurs when waste liquors are not correctly disposed of and leaks into groundwater or enter water sources run-off streams.

 Nuclear energy production requires a lot of water and must be touching a water source. As a result, the average nuclear plant uses over 18 billion liters annually –– almost 50 million liters daily. This is 23 times more water consumption than wind and solar energy combined.

The water used in the nuclear power process is now contaminated with radionuclides, an unstable form of uranium that releases radiation as it breaks down and becomes more stable. Now, to reuse this water for any purpose, it must be filtered. Treating contaminated radioactive water releases emissions resulting in 20,000 grams of GHG released by one nuclear reactor every year. Furthermore, substantial water consumption impacts local communities and their water supply, degrades the water in contact with the reactor due to increased water temperature, and harms marine biodiversity.

The relative privation fallacy encourages a false dichotomy in the nuclear energy debate, undermining the nuanced understanding of nuclear power's environmental costs and risks. It cannot be denied that nuclear energy is a valuable tool providing reliable, clean energy. However, it is not the only successful, readily available solution, and the long-term environmental damages associated with uranium mining and resulting waste must be acknowledged. 

We must foster a more honest conversation about energy to move forward in our fight against climate change.

The technology to harness wind and solar energy has proven just as reliable and more sustainable than nuclear energy. But, nuclear, solar, and wind energy should be used in tandem at equal levels to address climate change. So, instead of leaning on the relative privation fallacy, we must confront nuclear energy's full environmental costs and seriously consider cleaner, safer alternatives. The future of our planet depends on it.

An Analysis of the Right to Health for Palestinians

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the sixth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here.

By Buthaina Hattab, 2L at UIC Law

For a Palestinian, human rights violations can begin at birth. Palestinians are sometimes born at an Israeli checkpoint, instead of a hospital, because Israeli soldiers restrict Palestinian mothers from crossing the checkpoint and accessing healthcare. The systematic denial of Palestinian’s access to healthcare violates Israel’s responsibility under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In August 2024, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued General Recommendation 37 (GR 37), a written recommendation addressing racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to health and clarified State obligations under the CERD. GR 37 reinforces the obligation of Israel, as a signatory to CERD, to ensure that Palestinians have the right to access healthcare without discrimination or excessive state intervention. States are required to prevent discrimination, protect individuals against harm, and promote equality and dignity for all members of society.

The right to health under the CERD is “the right to prevention from health-harming conditions, disease and injury...[and] the right to equal and unhindered access to information and... health facilities, goods, services, including the right to privacy and confidentiality” among other factors. GR 37 affirms people are entitled to the right to be healthy and recognizes how racial discrimination negatively impacts the ability to exercise that right. Explaining the “right to the enjoyment of health” in the struggle against racial discrimination is significant because it advances a legal framework for racial justice.  

GR 37 also explains that toxic environmental exposures and limited access to health care disproportionally impact those that are victims of racial discrimination, like Palestinians. The Israeli government and military systematically deny Palestinians the right to health by restricting and controlling their movements. Israeli settlements are strategically built to isolate Palestinian villages resulting in less access to health care, safe and potable water, adequate sanitation, and overall healthy environmental conditions. As outlined in this map by Visualizing Palestine, Israeli settlers use segregated roads and checkpoints to promote the connection between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Israeli settlement infrastructure makes it very hard for Palestinians to access healthcare-both preventative and advanced-beyond the bounds of their villages and towns. The infrastructure that divides Palestinian land also impacts access to clean water. As a result, Palestinians are unable to update their water system or connect the systems to other towns. GR 37 identifies racial discrimination at the structural level, that can impact the right to health, creating “long-standing health inequities and high rates of poverty and social exclusion.”

In the Occupied West Bank, the web of segregated roads and checkpoints is a form of racism, at a structural level, that negatively impacts Palestinians right to bodily autonomy and physical integrity. According to a report from the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights submitted in 2005, 61 Palestinian women gave birth at Israeli checkpoints between September 2000 and December 2004, and 36 of their babies died as a result. The restriction of reproductive health care services is in direct violation of GR 37, where reproductive health care services are considered an important element of the right to health. GR 37 also recognizes the right to equal unhindered access to healthcare facilities and services, which is directly impacted by Israeli settlements. The segregated roads also show how “racial discrimination operates as a separate health risk and as a structural social determinant of health.” The roads are a physical effect of racial discrimination that hinder people’s right to health.

The right to health also explains that racial discrimination is determined by an individual’s environment. For this reason, adequate quantity, quality and maintenance level of safe drinking water and sanitation is outlined in GR 37 and Article 11 of CERD. According to Amnesty International, Israeli settlements impact water distribution within the West Bank, where Palestinian water intake is heavily regulated by the Israeli government. Additionally, the settlements are routinely constructed on hilltops, allowing wastewater to drain into valleys where Palestinians live (Norwegian Refugee Council). Israeli settlements have unlimited access to water sources, including personal swimming pools, while Palestinians have limited access to water sources and underdeveloped water infrastructure (Amnesty International). This violates Palestinian right to health by creating adverse effects from the exploitation of toxic waste storage.

GR 37 explains the right to health not as a vacuum, but rather as embedded in the surrounding environment, and subjected to surrounding structural racism. This recommendation expands and reinforces State duty under the right to health to ensure access to healthcare and resources necessary for life. A set of guiding principles regarding the right to health is a significant step forward in international law. Reviewing the recommendation alongside longstanding Palestinian human rights violations provide a new framework for advocacy.

Event 12/10: Gender Justice and the United States: An Examination of Past and Future

On December 10, 2025, from 11:30am-12:30pm ET, the new American Society of Int’l Law (ASIL) signature topic initiative on Advancing Gender Justice in International Law is hosting an event in commemoration of Human Rights Day and the culmination of the 16 Days Campaign to End Gender-Based Violence. Featured speakers include Professor Catherine Powell and Professor Suzanne Goldberg, both of whom have important connections to the BHRH Network (Catherine is a co-founder of the network!).

Registration for this event is free and open to the public. Register at https://www.asil.org/event/gender-justice-and-united-states-examination-past-and-future.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7270087658586943489

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asilorg.bsky.social/post/3lcifrxo5r22c

Plastic Production and Pollution: Legal Responses to the Global Plastic Crisis

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the fifth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here.

By Mark Haddad, 3L at UIC Law

Imagine an infected world. Imagine that every meal and every drink is infected with invisible shreds of plastic, wreaking havoc on the planet. Microplastics have spread into every facet of the world, finding itself in the oceans, soil, food, and even human blood. The Global Plastics Treaty is an international effort designed to combat the impact of plastic pollution on the planet. World leaders have joined to create the Global Plastics Treaty under international law to combat climate change. This treaty will address the urgent need to reduce plastic waste and the challenges of regulating plastics globally.

Over 450 million tons of plastics are produced globally. Almost half of plastic waste ends up in landfills globally, with over a fifth being mismanaged as of 2019. Scientists estimate the ocean holds roughly 8 million metric tons of plastic as of 2010. This is extremely detrimental to human health and the environment for several reasons. Microplastics have recently gained relevance as they were first discovered in 2004 and found in human blood in 2022. Microplastics in the ocean are often mistaken for food and consumed by wildlife. When wildlife consume microplastics they suffer from delays in development, problems with reproduction, and difficulty in defending themselves against infections. Microplastics in humans are linked to DNA damage, organ dysfunction, metabolic disorders, immune disorders, and a variety of chronic diseases.

The Global Plastics Treaty is an international treaty with ambitions to end plastic pollution by 2040. This treaty has been in fruition since 2017, when expert groups began exploring options to end plastic pollution to address the issue of plastic pollution and establish comprehensive and legally binding measures to reduce global plastic waste and pollution. Some objectives of the treaty are to enhance recycling and transition toward a circular economy. While negotiations took place in November, the negotiations aimed to address the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal.

The final round of negotiations had four main focal points. They focus on global bans and phase-outs of harmful plastics and chemicals, worldwide requirements and product design standards, financial support, and considerations for adapting to evolving challenges. Plastic bans and phase-outs are crucial to reducing plastic pollution by reducing our reliance on plastic production. Worldwide requirements and product design standards aim to create uniformity in the production and disposal of plastics as well as ensure ethical and environmentally safe methods are implemented.

The treaty's goals of financial support and adaptations address the potential setbacks in treaty implementation. Financial support is crucial as the global shift from harmful plastics and wasteful practices to a circular economy comes with economic challenges. This impact on developing nations and industries worldwide must be prioritized to ensure all parties are willing to ratify the treaty. This treaty negatively impacts developing and industry-dependent nations in the short run by impacting their ability to remain competitive in the market, as the new regulations on plastics are likely to increase the costs of production. Financial support will be crucial to easing the impacts of transitioning to the new global system and limiting economic impacts. Additionally, the consideration for adapting to evolving challenges is safeguarding the treaty from potential future issues, which will help quell potential fears of states willingness to ratify.

Effective global cooperation to implement a treaty that limits the impact of plastic on our health and environment poses unique challenges. Economic consequences are expected, as industries will be pressured to find alternatives, which will likely come at higher costs. For example, eliminating single-use plastics could have serious implications for countries with export-dependent industries, such as oil-rich nations, and developing countries in general. This will likely come with pushback by impacted unless strategic measures are taken to ensure plastic-related trade concerns are at the forefront of the issue.

The Global Plastic Treaty is a landmark effort in its use of uniting nations to address concerns about the plastic crisis. This challenge is both environmental and deeply interconnected with human health and the economic well-being of many nations and industries worldwide. This will provide an opportunity to reimagine the global production of environmental hazards that can lead us to a clean future for future generations. The fifth set of negotiations, which took place on November 25, 2024, in Busan, Republic of Korea, did not reach an agreement. More negotiations are set to take place next year in 2025.

Spray for Relief

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the fourth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here.

By Eric Mikucki, 2L at UIC Law

In May 2024, the U.S. State Department accused Russian forces of using chemical weapons, chloropicrin tear gas, in its illegal invasion of Ukraine. This public statement was followed by the imposition of sanctions against the Russian government. The use of chemical weapons in wartime has been banned internationally by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Prohibition in War and Domestic Use

The United States specifically alleged that Russian forces deployed chloropicrin tear gas in Ukraine. Despite clear condemnation from the United States, it regularly uses tear gas and considers its use legal when directed at U.S. civilians during times of protest or alleged civil unrest. The United States justifies the use of chemical weapons against civilians as a necessary tool for crowd control, meant to incapacitate crowds that have been deemed violent or unlawful. In practice, however, this justification by the United States is often unsupported as law enforcement often use chemical weapons with excessive and disproportionate force against crowds of protestors, often adding to the chaos if not creating it to begin with.

The methods of tear gas dispersal are generally indiscriminate and uncontrollable, resulting in civilian casualties. For example, a Philadelphia protester, Amira Chowdhury, explained that she “felt like I was choking to death” and “couldn’t breathe.” Amira suffered bruises as people scrambled over her to escape. She was victimized again later that evening as police deployed tear gas on protestors in her neighborhood and it seeped into her home. She stated “I can’t even be in my own house without escaping the violence of the state.” Others, such as a mother and her toddler, Gracie, who were not part of any protest were made victims as the gas deployed drifted past their car on their drive home. This use of chemical weapons by U.S. law enforcement presents a great danger to the peoples’ right to peacefully assemble and from unjust punishment.

Finally, allowing domestic production of chemical weapons has enabled their use in war despite their explicit prohibition under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The goal of the Chemical Weapons Convention is to eliminate the entire category of weapons of mass destruction. As such, the Convention demands that the United States “takes necessary steps to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction.” The United States has clearly failed to do so as it produces tear gas that is found in warzones globally and U.S. law enforcement continue their abuse of civilians’ rights with the use of these chemical weapons.

Negative Impacts of Exposure

The immediate negative health impacts of tear gas are known to result in the irritation of the eyes and lungs, difficulty or inability to breathe, and loss of vision, among others. However, these effects have long-term impacts, and may result in more permanent harm on human health. Long-term impacts on vision include the development of glaucoma, eye scarring, and cataracts, and breathing problems, such as asthma, are also a concern. Extended exposure to these chemicals range from twenty to forty-two weeks, consistently show increased mortality among tested populations of lab animals. Extended human exposure is more likely to result in severe injuries, which includes permanent disability, requiring professional medical management, or even death. Further, different variants of tear gases are more likely to cause genetic mutation and other long-term health problems.

The adverse impacts on human health do not end with direct exposure alone (when sprayed or particles make contact with the person) as these gases linger in the environment after being dispersed. U.S. law enforcement makes use of tear gas that can stick to surfaces for several days, increasing the risk of exposure to people and the environment well after use. Chemicals used in tear gas often collect in groundwater and coat surfaces near where they are dispersed, leading to future contacts with people, animals, and the environment as a whole. Environments exposed to these chemicals often suffer from decreases in biodiversity, specifically the loss of animal populations in the areas affected. As the environment degrades, and biodiversity is lost, it is shown to increase the occurrence of disease as well as other negative impacts on human life in an indiscriminate manner. This impact on the environment violates peoples’ right to life, health, and adequate standards of living as it prohibits the full enjoyment of said rights. Exemplified by the contamination of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon, Anna Feigenburg, PhD, explains that “tear gas contaminates agriculture and groundwater,” and has resulted in the poisoning of food and animals, “often causing them serious injury or death.”

Conclusion

As such, the United States’ use of chemical weapons via deployment of tear gasses and other substances is a clear violation of human rights. The United States’ use of chemical weapons against protestors violates the right against unjust punishment, and the right to peaceful assembly, life, health, and a healthy environment.

Environmental Defenders Under Threat: A New Digital Tool for Accountability under the Escazú Agreement

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the third post in that series. The first post in the series can be accessed here. The second post can be accessed here.

By Amanda Chavez, 2L at UIC Law

As environmental defenders face increasing threats, a new online platform launched by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has been created in support of the Escazú Agreement (the Agreement), formally known as the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. The website is designed to report a range of violations related to the protection of environmental defenders. Communications submitted on the platform will be directed to the Implementation and Compliance Support Committee (Compliance Committee), further strengthening its advocacy for greater accountability in the protection of environmental rights defenders. As a key body of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the Escazú Agreement, the Compliance Committee plays a vital role in monitoring state compliance and offering support to ensure the rights of environmental defenders are protected in practice. While the website enhances the advocacy of the Committee, its effectiveness relies on collective efforts to report violations against environmental defenders and clear guidelines regarding the actions taken when offenses to the Agreement are reported.

Understanding the Escazú Agreement

Environmental human rights advocates in the Americas face constant and often deadly attacks. Latin America and the Caribbean have consistently ranked as the world’s most dangerous region for environmental defenders. From 2012 to 2022, 88% of murders of environmental defenders took place in the region, with nearly 1,910 deaths recorded. Advocates from all over the region face criminalization, intimidation, smear campaigns, lack of protection, and lack of access to justice. In 2022, Mexico had the highest number of environmental defenders murdered, with 40% of the victims being Indigenous. Many environmental defenders in Colombia, Brazil, and Guatemala reported experiences of violence and displacement. 

The Escazú Agreement is a treaty aimed at protecting environmental human rights. It focuses on three key pillars: the right to information, public participation in environmental decisions, and access to justice. It includes provisions aimed at protecting environmental defenders who have faced rising violence and threats standing up against environmental degradation, corporate exploitation, and governmental inaction. The Agreement aims at addressing the needs of vulnerable environmental human rights defenders and promoting sustainable development by protecting access and procedural rights in the context of environmental and human rights. One such protection is Indigenous peoples' right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent before a State takes action that may affect them. The treaty was adopted in 2018 and entered into force as a binding instrument of law in April 2021. As of September 2024, there are twenty-four state parties with sixteen states having ratified the treaty. 

Recent Developments in the Compliance Committee

Despite the significant strides made by the Escazú Agreement in addressing the rights of environmental defenders and the need for greater participation, there remain considerable gaps in its enforcement and practical application. The lack of clear mechanisms for accountability and monitoring creates significant implementation barriers for the Agreement’s key provisions. This is where the Compliance Committee becomes critical as it adopts a consultative approach and depends on the active participation of member states. During the third meeting of the COP in April 2024 (COP3 Meeting), Anixh de Pablo, an indigenous leader from Guatemala, urged state parties to create mechanisms for participation of environmental defenders and Indigenous people, and a process for evaluating state participation. 

The ECLAC launched a website in September 2024. It was designed as a digital tool for reporting violations of the rights of environmental human rights defenders. It allows individuals, governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to report and track incidents of violence and threats against environmental activists. With this tool, the Compliance Committee can better identify gaps in implementation and hold member states accountable for failing to protect environmental defenders. Following the filing of reports, the Committee is to report to the COP, including any conclusions made regarding state non-compliance. Sources do not explicitly state what actions the COP takes in response to receiving the Committee’s reports, emphasizing an overall lack of procedural clarity within the Agreement. 

Call to Action

We must amplify the voices of those on the front lines of environmental protection and stand together in demanding that they may do so without fear of violence or persecution. Amnesty International calls on all thirty-three Latin American and Caribbean states to ratify the treaty. It emphasizes the urgent need for states already party to the agreement to uphold its provisions. The Escazú Agreement represents a powerful commitment to environmental justice and the launch of the reporting website is a vital step forward, but it is not enough. It requires collective action to ensure that it is widely used, that the data it generates is acted upon, and that accountability becomes a reality.

Including Ecocide as a Crime of the ICC: Implications in International Human Rights

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the second post in that series. The first post in the series can be accessed here.

By Jacob Baron & Sara Nasif, 3Ls at UIC Law

September 9th, 2024 marked a pivotal moment in the purview of environmental justice: Ecocide was formally introduced to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for consideration as a punishable crime, a pivotal act that paves the way for environmental destruction to be recognized under international criminal law. The proposal aims to amend the Rome Statute to include Ecocide as the fifth ever international crime under the statute, joining the  preexisting crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. This proposal to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statue formally made by Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa, three developing countries that advocated to create a means of prosecuting heads of State, leaders of polluting companies, and other powerful entities who have brought about environmental destruction. As such, the inclusion of Ecocide as a crime of the International Criminal Court is critical because it holds those in positions of power to the highest level of accountability for actions that have led and can lead to environmental harm. By recognizing Ecocide as the fifth international crime, ICC acknowledges that reckless environmental destruction is a serious offence and not a collateral—it is a crime and clarifies international obligations regarding rights impacted by environmental harm thus elevating environmental protections.

The Rome Statute outlines the governing framework for the ICC, defines crimes that fall within its jurisdiction, and provides rules for procedural mechanisms and State cooperation. States that have accepted these rules are colloquially referred to as “State Parties” and are represented in an Assembly of States Parties. A primary objective of the ICC is to prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern and enforce legal consequences by holding individuals accountable. Currently, the ICC prosecutes only the four aforementioned crimes under the Rome Statute. Through adding ecocide as a fifth, the ICC could both prosecute individuals for significant environmental destruction and establish a deterrent effect, encouraging greater degrees of responsibility toward the environment through clear and concise amendments.

Per these proposed amendments to the Rome Statute, the legal definition of ecocide is as follows: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” In this context, the term “wanton” means a reckless disregard for damage clearly excessive in relation to anticipated social and economic benefits. The word “severe” refers to damage involving serious adverse change, disruption, or harm to any element of the environment. “Widespread” refers to damage that extends beyond a limited geographic area and crosses State boundaries, and “long-term” signifies irreversible damage that cannot be naturally redressed within a reasonable amount of time. Under this same definition, the term "environment" has also been clarified to include the earth’s biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and outer space.  

Under this definition, ecocide as a punishable offence would not implicate “ordinary” people, because “ordinary” people are not responsible for mass degradation of the natural world. Rather, it holds criminally liable only those with decision-making capabilities at the top levels of industry and government. Only when those with power fail to adhere to existing environmental regulations, or knowingly act without regard to detrimental environmental effects, does the environment face a substantial likelihood of “severe,” “widespread,” or “long-term” damage. Typical civilians simply do not possess the resources to pose comparable ecological threats.

Criminalizing ecocide is not a novel idea by Pacific Island countries. Rather, several States have declared explicit support for ecocide as a crime at the international level. Many of these States and more have enacted and proposed legislation criminalizing ecocide at the domestic level, as well. According to a recent survey of G20 countries, support for criminalizing ecocide is not simply institutional, either. 72% of civilians agree that “approving or permitting actions which cause serious damage to nature and the climate should be a criminal offense.” With growing State support, and nearly 3 out of four people supporting the criminalization of ecocide, there exists an undeniable international demand for environmental accountability that does not currently exist.

Until a global system of accountability is enacted, those in power will continue to abuse their positions for the benefit of themselves, and to the detriment of the planet from which they function. Efforts of Fiji, and Samoa to include ecocide among punishable offences under the ICC is a crucial step in the right direction. Only through criminalizing ecocide might those in power be legitimately dissuaded from contributing to environmental degradation.

Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing: Call for Inputs on the right to adequate housing for people on the move

The Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Mr. Balakrishnan Rajagopal, has also decided to dedicate his next thematic report to the Human Rights Council to the topic: right to adequate housing in the context of human mobility. This includes a focus on the rights and situations of all individuals who have crossed an international border, including migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, environmental migrants, smuggled migrants, victims of human trafficking, and international students; as well as their overall impact on the housing system including on affordability and accessibility.

In this regard, the Special Rapporteur has called for written contributions to one or more of the following questions:

• Please flag important or emblematic regional and national standards and policies for the housing of migrants, including those related to accommodation, reception, shelter, etc. (1 page max)
• Are there any emblematic challenges to the enjoyment of adequate housing by one or more of the above-mentioned groups of migrants and refugees or other vulnerable groups among them (e.g., women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, minorities, LGBTQIA+, etc.) that you would like to highlight? These challenges include security of tenure, affordability, availability, accessibility, habitability, location and cultural adequacy. Do migrants and refugees experience discrimination or live in segregated areas? Please kindly explain the issue and provide any relevant background information, including related legal, policy or administrative barriers experienced. (1 page max)
• Are there any successful practices or models that have been implemented to improve housing access and/or conditions for these groups of migrants and refugees? Please provide detailed information, including any relevant legislative, policy, administrative or financial support solutions that made them possible. (1 page max)
• In what ways does human mobility influence the access/availability of housing, access to services, community safety perception, and overall quality of life for local residents? Are migrants and refugees being scapegoated for existing housing crises, despite these crises being rooted in other dynamics? Has human mobility posed challenges to the right to adequate housing and associated services for local residents, or alternatively brought unexpected benefits? Kindly explain and provide relevant factual, policy or other relevant information. (1 page max)

This report will be presented to the Human Rights Council in March 2025. If you wish to send any inputs, please do so by November 8, 2024, by sending an email to [email protected] and [email protected] copying [email protected].

Event 11/20: OHCHR Webinar on human rights of people on the move

The OHCHR and Global Strategic Litigation Council for Refugee Rights are organizing two webinars discussing how to effectively utilize U.N. Treaty Bodies to advance human rights of people on the move. These webinars with explore litigation opportunities within the U.N. human rights treaty bodies, including an overview of how to effectively use their individual communication procedures, as well as a showcase of key jurisprudence on non-refoulment and other human rights protections against return. If interested, please register by November 6, 2024.

Session for U.S., Latin America, and Europe will be hosted on November 20, 2024, at 10:30 EST, and can be registered for here.

A Beginning Point for Communicating about the Mid-East War

By Prof. Margaret Drew, UMass Law School

Local artists David Guadalupe and Brian Tillett recently completed a mural in a downtown New Bedford, MA park.  Let the discussions begin here.

Uniting for the Planet: Environmental Promises of the United Nations Pact for the Future

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the first post in that series.

By Skylar Nafziger, 3L at UIC Law

With the world failing to keep up with the rapid degradation of the environment, the adoption of the Pact for the Future provided a critical opportunity for world leaders to reimagine the course of action taken to restore the environment for the future of humankind, and for the future of the environment itself.  The Pact was adopted by UN Member States at the UN Summit of the Future that took place on September 22 and 23, 2024, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

The United Nations describes the Pact for the Future as “[a]n inter-governmentally negotiated, action-oriented”  formal agreement between Member States. The Pact contains a compilation of chapters addressing sustainable development and financing for development; international peace and security; science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation; youth and future generations; and transforming global governance.

The Pact for the Future recognizes that there cannot be a better future for humankind on this planet without also creating a better future for the planet itself. With that, the environmental issues the Pact for the Future seeks to rectify are climate change, global warming, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, pollution, water scarcity, food insecurity, floods, desecration, land degradation, deforestation, plastic pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Pact for the Future makes it clear that many of these issues have already been addressed through past agreements between Member States, meaning that they must fulfill their existing responsibilities while also tackling new issues arising from the currently state of environmental emergency. Additionally, the adverse impacts of climate change on developing countries that are particularly vulnerable are at the forefront of the issues the Member States must address following the adoption of the Pact for the Future.

Each chapter of the Pact for the Future is comprised of Actions that Member States are expected to take to combat each issue. The chapter on Substantial Development and Financing for Development recognizes that current “environmental challenges pose serious risks to our natural environment and our prospects for development,” and provides two specific Actions that Member States must take to thwart such risks. Action 9 of the Pact for the Future indicates that Member States will “strengthen [their] actions to address climate change.” In doing so, the Pact for the Future reaffirmed the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change and the Paris Agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in a “just, orderly and equitable manner. Action 10 more broadly states that Member States “will accelerate [their] efforts to restore, protect, conserve and sustainably use the environment.” These efforts include reversing trends of environmental degradation, improving the use of the ocean and its ecosystems, promoting sustainable consumption and production, addressing pollution of the air, land, soil, and water, halting and reversing biodiversity loss, and “strengthen[ing] international cooperation on the environment by implementing and complying with multilateral environmental agreements.”

If member states succeed in following through with the agreed actions of the Pact for the Future, then we can anticipate seeing a net zero emission energy system by 2050, a global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, halted and reversed deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, implementation of the Early Warning for All hazard warning system by 2027, and completed negotiations of a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution by the end of 2024.

Although the Pact for the Future provides what States will be expected to accomplish following its adoption, it lacks substance as to how States will do so—further yielding the question: How can States be expected to take additional action to address new issues when they are already failing to comply with their obligations concerning the protection of the environment under preexisting agreements?

While the right to a healthy environment was only officially recognized more recently by the General Assembly in its July 28, 2022, Resolution 76/300, an extensive list of rights already widely recognized are violated because of the degrading environment. For example, under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life.” In General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee further acknowledged that “[e]nvironmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life.” Additionally, the Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically acknowledged in General Comment No. 26 that “[c]hildren have the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”

That being said, the fact that world leaders were able to come together and adopt the Pact for the Future in the first place allows members of society to be optimistic that States’ environmental actions will progress. The Pact for the Future reaffirms Member States’ commitments and obliges them to take expeditious action to better the world for the generations to come. However, because the environment is currently in a vulnerable state, there will be no future without immediate action. It is the responsibility of States to develop and follow through with the necessary action required to achieve the goals they collectively established in the Pact for the Future. Adopting the Pact for the Future constitutes a singular step in restoring the environment, leaving the States with much more left to be done.