The Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. This article summarizes new research published in D. R. Boyd, The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2012). 2. J. Borrows, The Indigenous Constitution. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010). 3. R. Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962), pp. 12–13. 4. Carson is quoted in J. Cronin and R. F. Kennedy, Jr., The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim Our Environment as a Basic Human Right (New York: Scribner, 1997), p. 235. 5. Stockholm Declaration (Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment), 1972, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1. 6. The six U.S. states are Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The Canadian provinces and territories are Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. Cities include Pittsburgh, Santa Monica, and Montreal. 7. State v. Acheson 1991 2 SA 805 (Namibia). 8. Constitution of Portugal. In R. Wolfrum and R. Grote, Constitutions of the Countries of the World, G. H. Flanz, ed. emeritus (New York: Oceana Law, 1976), 2012. 9. D. S. Law and M. Versteeg, “The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution,” New York University Law Review 87 (2012): in press. 10. Constitution of Kenya (2010), Art. 261(1), Fifth Schedule. 11. J. R. Walsh, “Argentina's Constitution and General Environmental Law as the Framework for Comprehensive Land Use Regulation,” in N. J. Chalifour, P. Kameri-Mbote, L. H. Lye, and J. R. Nolon, eds., Land Use Law for Sustainable Development, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 503–25 at 505. 12. D. A. Sabsay, “Constitution and Environment in Relation to Sustainable Development,” in M. E. Di Paola, ed., Symposium of Judges and Prosecutors of Latin America: Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (Buenos Aires: Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2003), pp. 33–43. 13. An example of a provincial law that incorporates the right to a healthy environment as a guiding principle is Rio Negro's Environmental Impact Assessment Law (Rio Negro Law No. 3266, 16 December 1998). 14. D. Marrani, “The Second Anniversary of the Constitutionalisation of the French Charter for the Environment: Constitutional and Environmental Implications,” Environmental Law Review 10, no. 1 (2008): 9–27 at 25. 15. M. J. Cepeda Espinosa, “The Judicialization of Politics in Colombia: The Old and the New,” in R. Sieder, L. Schjolden, and A. Angell, eds. The Judicialization of Politics In Latin America. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2005), pp. 67–104. 16. Suray Prasad Sharma Dhungel v. Godavari Marble Industries and others (1995), WP 35/1991, Supreme Court of Nepal. Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente y otros (2009), Costa Rican Constitutional Court. 17. Lalanath de Silva v. Minister of Forestry and Environment (1998), Fundamental Rights Application 569/98, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. Greenwatch v. Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority, (2002), Miscellaneous Application 140 of 2002 (Uganda). Murli S. Deora v. Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 765 (Supreme Court of India). 18. H. M. Henares, Jr. et al. v Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board et al, (2006), G.R. No. 158290, 23 October 2006, Supreme Court, Third Division, Philippines. See also Anjum Irfan v LDA (2002), PLD 2002 Lahore 555 (Pakistan). 19. L. Lavrysen, “Presentation of Aarhus-Related Cases of the Belgian Constitutional Court,” Environmental Law Network International Review 2 (2007): 5–8. 20. M. Prieur, “De L'urgente Necessite de Reconnaitre le Principe de Non Regression en Droit de l'environnement,” IUCN Academy of Environmental Law E-Journal 1 (2011): 26–45. 21. L. Lavrysen, “Presentation of Aarhus-Related Cases of the Belgian Constitutional Court,” Environmental Law Network International Review 2 (2007): 5–8. 22. Jacobs v. Flemish Region (1999), Council of State No. 80.018, 29 April 1999. Venter (1999), Council of State no. 82.130, 20 August 1999. 23. Constitutional Court of Hungary. 1994. Judgment 28, V. 20 AB, p.1919. 24. L. K. McAllister, Making Law Matter: Environmental Protection and Legal Institutions in Brazil (Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 2008). 25. V. Passos de Freitas, “The Importance of Environmental Judicial Decisions: The Brazilian Experience,” in M. E. Di Paola, ed. Symposium of Judges and Prosecutors of Latin America: Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (Buenos Aires: Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2003), pp. 59–64 at 62. 26. McAllister, note 24, p. 99. 27. Supreme Court of the Philippines, Resolution A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Manila: Supreme Court, 2010). 28. S. Stec, “Environmental Justice through Courts in Countries in Economic Transition,” in J. Ebbesson and P. Okowa, eds., Environmental Law and Justice in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 158–175. 29. Regarding Europe, see N. de Sadeleer, G. Roller, and M. Dross, Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the Role of NGOs: Empirical Findings and Legal Appraisal (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2005). 30. K. Hochstetler and M. E. Keck, Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), p. 55. 31. Defensoria del Pueblo, Diagnostic del cumplimiento del derecho humano al agua en Colombia (Bogota: Defensoria del Pueblo, 2009). 32. Boyd, note 1. 33. C. M. Jariwala, “The Directions of Environmental Justice: An Overview,” in S. K. Verma and K. Kusum, eds., Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 469–494. 34. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, The Sustainability of Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: Challenges and Opportunities (Santiago, Chile: United Nations, 2002), p. 163. 35. Tatar and Tatar v. Romania (2009) no. 67021/01, 27 January 2009 (European Court of Human Rights); Fadeyeva v. Russia (2005) No. 55723/00, 9 June 2005 (European Court of Human Rights). Okyay et al. v. Turkey, No. 36220/97, 12 July 2005 (European Court of Human Rights). In Chile, see “Defensa de los Derechos Humanos: Caso contaminación en Arica,” Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente, 2012, http://www.fima.cl 36. Pablo Miguel Fabián Martínez and others v. Minister of Health and Director General of Environmental Health (2006), Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, Exp. No. 2002-2006-PC/TC. 37. Supreme Court of Justice Appeal no. 575.998 (Minas Gervais), 16 November 2004. Supreme Court of Justice Appeal no. 70011759842 (Rio Grande do Sul), 1 December 2005. Supreme Court of Justice Appeal no. 70012091278 (Rio Grande do Sul), 25 January 2006. 38. K. D. Alley and D. Meadows, “Workers' Rights and Pollution Control in Delhi,” Human Rights Dialogue 2, no. 11 (2004): 15–17. 39. D. A. Ghertner, and M. Fripp, “Trading Away Damage: Quantifying Environmental Leakage through Consumption-Based Life-Cycle Analysis” Ecological Economics 63, 2/3 (2006): 563–577. 40. Pavel Ocepek, Breg pri Komendi (1999), Up-344/96, 04/01/1999 (Constitutional Court). 41. L. Lavrysen, “Belgium,” in L. J. Kotze and A. R. Paterson, eds., The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Governance: Comparative Perspectives (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2009), pp. 85–122 at 114. 42. Okyay et al v. Turkey (2005) no. 36220/97, 12 July 2005 (European Court of Human Rights). 43. P. Cullet, The Sardar Sarovar Dam Project (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007). S. J. Turner, A Substantive Environmental Right: An Examination of the Legal Obligations of Decision-Makers Towards the Environment (New York: Kluwer Law, 2009). 44. Greece Council of State 2759/1994, 2760/1994, 3478/2000. T. Koivurova, “The Case of Vuotos: Interplay between International, Community, and National Law,” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 13, no. 1 (2004): 47–60. M.M. Levy y Asociacion Ecologista Limonense v. Ministerio del Ambiente y Energia, Decision 2001-13295, Expediente 00-007280-0007-CO, 21/12/2001 (Costa Rica). Baba Dam Case (2008) Third Chamber, Constitutional Court, 12 December 2008, Case no. 1212-2007-RA (Ecuador). T. V. Zlotnikova, K. E. Lebedeva et al., v. Russian Federation (1998), no. GPKI 97-249, Ruling of 17 February 1998 (Russia Supreme Court). K. Boonlai and P. Changplayngam, “Thai Court Halts Many New Plants in Big Industrial Zone,” Reuters, 3 December (2009). 45. Environmental Education Promotion Act (South Korea, 2008). National Environmental Awareness and Education Act of 2008 (Philippines). Law on Ecological Education of the Population (Armenia, 2001). National Environmental Education Policy Act (Brazil, 1999). 46. Beatriz Silvia Mendoza and others v. National Government and Others (2008) (Damages stemming from contamination of the Matanza-Riachuelo River ), M. 1569, 8 July 2008 (Supreme Court of Argentina). Concerned Residents of Manila Bay et al v. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and others (2008) G.R. nos. 171947-48 (Supreme Court of the Philippines). M.C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1031 (Supreme Court of India). 47. Marrani, see note 14. 48. Boyd, note 1. 49. Boyd, note 1, chapter 12. 50. Delhi motor vehicle pollution—M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2002 (4) SCC 356; Ganges pollution—M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115; forest conservation—T. N. Godavarman Tirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 43. 51. Mossman Environmental Action Now v. United States (2010), Petition 242-05, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Admissibility Decision, Report no. 43/10, 17 March 2010. 52. UK House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-ninth Report (London: House of Lords, 2008). 53. Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill C-469, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. Bill C-469 passed second reading in the House of Commons but was not enacted prior to the dissolution of Parliament for the spring election in 2011. 54. D. Boyd, “The Implicit Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment,” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 20, no. 2 (2011): 171–179. 55. Suray Prasad Sharma Dhungel v. Godavari Marble Industries and Others (1995), WP 35/1991, Supreme Court of Nepal. 56. J. P. Eurick, “The Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment: Enforcing Environmental Protection Through State and Federal Constitutions,” International Legal Perspectives 11, no. 2 (2001): 185–222. 57. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and National Constitutional Assembly, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Zimbabwe: Options for Constitutional Reform (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, 2009), p. 80. 58. UN Human Rights Council, Resolution on Human Rights and the Environment, A/HRC/19/L.8/Rev.1, 20 March (2012). 59. Quoted in J. Mark, “Natural Law,” Earth Island Journal 27, no. 1 (2012): 40–46 at 43. 60. For additional details regarding research methods, see Boyd, note 1, appendix 1. 61. C. Ollivier, “French Cabinet Approves Plan for a New Environmental Charter,” Associated Press, June 26 (2003). 62. C. Ollivier, “French President Issues Strong Call to Protect the Environment,” Associated Press, May 3 (2001). 63. J. Chirac, “Statement,” at the Opening Ceremony of the Founding Congress of the World Organization for Cities and Local Government, Paris, May 2 (2004). 64. D. Case, “Liberte, Egalite, Environment: The French Constitution gets a Dash of Green,” The Daily Grist July 14 (2005). 65. M. Prieur, “La chart de l'environnement: Droit dur ou gadget politique?” Pouvoirs 127, no. 4 (2008): 49–65. D. Marrani, “Human Rights and Environmental Protection: The Pressure of the Charter for the Environment on French Administrative Courts,” Sustainable Development Law and Policy 10, no. 1 (2008): 52–57. 66. D. Marrani, “The Second Anniversary of the Constitutionalisation of the French Charter for the Environment: Constitutional and Environmental Implications,” Environmental Law Review 10, no. 1 (2008): 9–27 at 25. 67. Beatriz Silvia Mendoza v. National Government and Others (2008) (Damages stemming from contamination of the Matanza-Riachuelo River ), M. 1569, 8 July (2008) (Supreme Court). 68. World Bank, Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Adaptable Loan Program in the Amount of $US840 Million to the Argentine Republic for the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development Project, Phase 1, Report no. 48443-AR (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009). 69. Law on the Matanza-Riachuelo Watershed, Law no. 26.168 (B.O. 15 November 2006 ). 70. T. Yang and R. V. Percival, “The Emergence of Global Environmental Law,” Ecology Law Quarterly 36 (2009): 615–664. 71. Matanza-Riachuelo Watershed Authority (Autoridad de Cuenca Matanza Riachuelo). Pisa 2010 Actualizado. (Buenos Aires, Argentina: ACUMAR, 2011). See http://www.acumar.gov.ar 72. K. I. Staveland-Saeter, Litigating the Right to a Healthy Environment: Assessing the Policy Impact of the Mendoza Case (Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelson Institute, 2011), p. 48. 73. World Bank, note 67, p. 15.