Wednesday, November 27, 2024
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.
November 27, 2024 in Environment, Health, War | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
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.
November 20, 2024 in Environment | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
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.
November 12, 2024 in Environment | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
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].
November 5, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, November 4, 2024
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.
November 4, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)