EnvironmentalImpactAssessment – Earth Refuge Legal

January 1, 2018June 25, 2023

Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan

Date: 1 January 2018

Court: Lahore High Court, Pakistan

Citation: W.P. No. 25501/2015

Short summary

The plaintiff sued the Federal Government of Pakistan and Regional Government of Punjab for failure to address climate change, arguing that the government’s failure to implement national climate change policy threatened citizens’ rights to life, a healthy and clean environment, and human dignity. The High Court agreed and mandated certain administrative changes to ensure citizens’ fundamental rights to water, food, and energy.

Summary by: Saw Aung Aung

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

This decision holds great weight in Pakistan, as the judgment from the High Court binds the national government to further ensure implementation of national climate change policy and to enforce the fundamental rights of its citizens in the context of climate change..

Key facts

Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, as seen recently from massive damage, death, and displacement caused by flooding. According to articles 9 (right to life) and 14 (right to a healthy and clean environment and to human dignity) of the Pakistani Constitution, citizens can turn to the courts to recognize state obligations to ensure these fundamental rights.

Under the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 (“Policy”) and the 2014-2030 Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (“Framework”), the courts also have the authority to install and remove members of the Climate Change Commission (“CCC”), including relevant experts from the Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Climate Change, and Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination, and to require reports from the CCC on whether citizens’ rights are properly safeguarded in the context of environmental and climate change.

Petitioner Leghari filed this case against the Federal Government of Pakistan and the Regional Government of Punjab, alleging that the impacts of climate change, and a lack of action from the government, violated his rights as a citizen. In particular, Leghari alleged that failure to implement the national Policy and Framework on climate change threatened his livelihood as an agriculturist, given his economic dependency on access to clean water, energy, and food.

Previous instances

Previous cases in Pakistan (Tiwana v. Punjab [PLD 2015 Lahore 522] and Zia v. WAPDA [PLD 1994 SC 693]) established that national and provincial environmental laws should be enforced consistent with international principles of environmental law, including respect for fundamental rights and proper execution of environmental impact assessments.

Summary of holding

The Court first recognized that climate change in Pakistan has led to heavy flooding and droughts, threatening citizens’ fundamental rights to water and food security, especially the most vulnerable in the country. It then held that the government had not taken sufficient action to implement its climate change Policy or Framework, despite notable progress by the CCC. Nonetheless, the Court dissolved the CCC, and future authority to coordinate implementation of the national Policy and Framework was vested in a Standing Committee on Climate Change, to “act as a link between the Court and the Executive . . . to ensure that the Policy and the Framework continue to be implemented.”

The Court agreed with Leghari that their authority to intervene was connected with the rights to life and human dignity “under articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution,” especially with respect to his right as a citizen to access clean water: “Climate Justice and Water Justice go hand in hand.” Moreover, the Court’s decision referenced “international environmental principles of sustainable development, [the] precautionary principle, environmental impact assessment[s], inter[-] and intra-generational equity[,] and [the] public trust doctrine” among the mechanisms used to justify its ruling.

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation

Leghari is a relatively successful example of a citizen directly asserting their rights in court against a national government in the context of climate change. The High Court’s willingness to hear such a rights-based claim and respond with a substantive policy change order should be of interest to future litigators bringing national cases related to climate mitigation or adaptation.

While the policy changes mandated by the Court may or may not bring Pakistan into compliance with its own climate change Policy or Framework, advocates should note that, in a country already frequently devastated by the impacts of climate change, the High Court asserted a muscular role for itself in coordinating executive and legislative actions, including via the creation of a new Standing Committee to enforce fundamental rights in the context of climate change. In doing so, the Court seemed especially moved by rural citizens’ dependence on clean and consistent water sources, a perennial environmental issue in Pakistan. In mobility-related cases, then, it may be wise to assert claims with reference to environmental hazards already well-recognized in a given jurisdiction.

December 11, 2012June 22, 2022

Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom

Date: 11 December 2012

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Application no. 35622/04 (11 December 2012)

Short summary

Former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and their descendants brought an action to contest the U.K.’s bar on resettling the islands. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed previous judgments from U.K. courts barring the plaintiffs’ petitions for resettlement, in part due to the risks of climate change to the Islands.

Summary by: Luke Hancox

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

The European Court of Human Rights is the sole body positioned to adjudge claims lodged under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its rulings are generally, though not universally, recognized as valid and enforceable by European parties to the Convention.

Key facts

Between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to expel or bar the return of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. This was done to facilitate the construction of a United States military base on the island of Diego Garcia. This action was brought by those former inhabitants and their descendants (1,786 people). The applicants brought their action under Articles 6 & 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The litigation of this case involves multiple cases in domestic U.K. courts over the past 50 years regarding the events surrounding the colonization and eventual expulsion of inhabitants of the Chagos Islands.

On 8 November 1965, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Order in Council (SI 1965/120) established a new colony, including the Chagos Islands and other islands formerly part of the Colony of Mauritius and of the Seychelles. When agreeing to give the U.S. military access to the islands, the

U.K. treated the islands as having no permanent population in order to avoid obligations under the United Nations Charter. They claimed the population was overwhelmingly migrant workers who no longer had jobs because the plantation operated on the islands had been acquired by the U.K. government to transfer to the U.S.

As a result of the above acquisition, the islands’ inhabitants were evacuated. The BIOT Commissioner passed an ordinance in 1971, making it unlawful and a criminal offense for anyone to enter or remain in the territory without a permit. The evacuation caused immeasurable damage to these communities by uprooting their lives and forcing resettlement elsewhere. The U.K. government paid 650,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to Mauritius to aid the resettlement effort.

A 1975 case brought in the High Court of London led the U.K. government to settle all claims with the islanders. The settlement resulted in monthly payments of 2,976 GBP a month to 1,344 Chagossians between 1982 and 1984. In 2000, a case challenging the 1971 Order was brought in London. The court held that the islanders had no permanent right to the land or its use but that the Order was nevertheless invalid as outside the scope of authority of the BIOT Commissioner. This led to the bar on entry to the islands by the former inhabitants being lifted. However, none of these inhabitants went to live on the islands afterward. The U.K. government also began a study to determine the viability of resettlement of the islands after this case.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2

March 3, 2005October 17, 2022

Taskin and Ors. v. Turkey (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Date of judgement: 3 March 2005

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): Application no. 46117/99, (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Short summary

The European Court of Human Rights held that environmental pollution could affect Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life). The Turkish Government had violated Art. 8, even if such pollution did not have serious health-related consequences.

Summary by: Makaela Fehlhaber

Link to original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

Given the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights, the Taskin judgement is significant and bears considerable weight.

Key facts

The applicants were residents of Bergama. In 1992, the respondent had granted permits to operate a gold mine in Ovacik, a district within Bergama. The applicants contended that as a result of the granting of these permits, they had suffered and continued to suffer the effects of environmental damage – namely the inability to move freely and noise pollution – from the use of machinery and explosives.

Previous instances

Subsequently, the applicants sought judicial review in the Administrative Court of the Ministry of Environment’s of the decision to issue the permits on the grounds of the risks posed to human health and safety. The application was dismissed by the Court in 1996, but the provincial governor of the area agreed to suspend mining operations for one month in the subsequent year in the interests of the public.

In 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Administrative Court’s decision, finding that the mining activities did not serve the public interests towards health and safety measures. This was later upheld by the Administrative Court. However, irrespective of these decisions and subsequent orders, the mine reopened in an experimental capacity in 2001.

Ten Turkish nationals lodged an application (no. 46117/99) against the Republic of Turkey to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1998 under Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). The applicants contended that the actions of the respondent violated Art. 2 (right to life) and Art. 8 (right to private and family life) of the Convention. Under Art. 8, the applicants alleged that the use of cyanidation operating processes violated their right to private and family life as its uses posed a significant risk (para. 104). The applicants further stated that their judicial rights had not been upheld in accordance with Art. 6 (right to a fair trial) and Art. 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Accordingly, they sought compensation for infringement of these rights, and for failure to enforce a judgement.

The respondents contended that the arguments submitted in respect of Art. 8 were based on hypothetical risks that may or may not materialise. Accordingly, this could not be categorised as a serious and imminent risk (para. 107) as there needed to be a direct effect (para. 108) upon the lives of the applicants. Furthermore, the respondents submitted that Art. 8 was inapplicable as it had previously been determined that the risks of mining did not present any danger for the health of the local population (para. 9), as the government had conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment. The respondent further submitted that Art. 6 of the Convention did not apply for the same reasons (para. 128).

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2